It is true that the repetition of the line does emphasise the non-literal meaning over the literal-meaning.
It is also true that the repetition of the line does merely emphasise the presence of a non-literal meaning (without actually telling us what that meaning is).
These two claims are compatible. The difference is one of how to develope the argument, or where in the argument you place the accent. I fear that going into detail is more confusing than it is helpful.
The two concepts are linked like this:
The repetition emphasise the non-literal meaning over the literal meaning?
How does it do that?
It does so by inviting closer investigation of the sentence's relation to the poet (a non-literal meaning).
The path taken to the goal is different, but headed in the same direction. The goals of each paragraph are, if not identical, at least very similar.
If we were writing a sixteen page article about the repetition of the last two lines, this would be important for clarity. But, as it is, it seems to me to be more important to find a short text that can serve as an answer to the questions, that doesn't sound either meaningless or wrong, and that serves as a point of departure for further thoughts. Both the versions, IMO, would achieve that (although others might disagree). And for the sake of this they're close enough.