I think it is a good game with some introspective qualities to it. The art and music are all cohesive to the narrative you present.
From a conceptual standpoint, the narrator disagreeing with your decisions makes sense, especially if we're framed to be playing as the 'voice-inside-your-head' which isnt necessarily congruent to our actions. From a gameplay standpoint though, eh I'm not sure it works, just because you can get rejected from the game loop for something that seems obvious from an outsider perspective.
congrats on the release
Herein, I have to philosophize so either strap in or ignore it, I don't mind either option but I am liable to get baited by content like this. I am also doing this with this game because I think you did a good job at conceptualizing something but might not really have the whole picture.
[ALSO SPOILER WARNING]
I think the "good ending" actions taken by the character can sometimes come across as idealistic (path 3), or the moralising might not necessarily sit right (path 2). Ultimately in a game about self-recognition, I think there are some aspects missing between the relationship between self and society. There are kind of two camps of self-recognition. The first is that as long as you can conceptualize yourself, you are now a single individual unrelated to any other individuals, in an isolated sea of other atomized individuals. (think Descartes, I think therefore I am). The key problem with this is that humans cannot conceptualize pretty much anything in the absence of other humans. Language, education, culture are all shared between other humans and inform our view of the world and our view of our selves. This brings us to the other Hegelian view of recognition, that human's can only really feel recognized when we have a mutual recognition of others. I can provide more resources to this if requested but this is the kind of line of thought I take here.
Path 1 is your strongest path: You present a lot of things in a short space. You point out that individuals can only recognize themselves in post-modern society through the exchange of sign value. The simplified idea is that people no longer have a real representation of themselves as humans, they can only be represented to others by the commodities they own and the status it gives them. I think the corollary you present here is consistent, because you argue that people can regain their representation of self by mutual-recognition of others. And I completely agree, that is the basis of a real egalitarian society.
Path 2: I believe the path you present is good but the moral-of-the-story is kinda bunk. "But he did know that it wasn't on the road to martyrdom. [...] he could feel himself needing that acclaim a little too much". He wasn't getting acclaim from anyone at that point, he overstepped a boundary and credited himself. I believe you imply that, but the text that is actually provided presents something different: it presents that he did the morally right thing despite disrespecting the feelings of someone else. In terms of recognition, Norm is not able to recognize himself because he doesn't really respect or recognize his neighbours wishes or bodily ability - and when he finally gains a view of mutual recognition is when he has an epiphany and can finally recognize himself.
Path 3 is my least-favourite path by leaps and bounds. It's very simplistic in the idea that you can simply let go of things like trauma (described as baggage) by the sheer force of self-rationalization. It's counter to pretty much all the stuff discussed above. No one can really conceptualize healing of trauma, (especially trauma handed to you by other humans) by yourself. Moving away from philosophy for a sec, when was the last time you were really able to correct your bad behaviour without others keeping you in check? I find myself being able to turn over things in my head but its only through the writings of others and the support from found family that I am able to move past certain things. How can individual shame be overcome when the specific ruleset of society still promotes you to be ashamed of these things without actually offering help, only shame.(e.g. if youre an "unmasculine" male who has been shamed for that masculinity by parents, schools and labour, how do you unlearn this shame on your own)
I think the way letting go of ambitions is framed is a little weird too, just because it's framed in the same way as letting go of trauma, but really it's because trauma and systemic violence that people lose their ambition and willingness to participate.