To elaborate breezily on Model as an ‘Interpretation’ and equate a Modeled-Reality to an ‘Interpreted Reality’ is to miss the point.
The very notion of ‘Interpretation’ is a Modeled-Idea. As is the notion of ‘Model’. [Fresh Academics and Deconstructionists are the most susceptible to such leaps.]
As there is, never was, any such thing as a Separated ‘Self’, there are no ‘Models’ being built by any ‘Separated ‘Self’. There are no ‘Models’ being embraced by any ‘Separated ‘Self’. There are no ‘Modeled Realities’ in which the non-existent Separated ‘Self’ resides. In fact, there are no ‘Models’ at all.
The early Vedanthin’s intuited this truth in defining the Sanskrit Maya as ‘Error’ and ‘Illusion’ [or in its more restrained metaphoric versions, ‘Like an Illusion’]. It was incomplete, for notions like ‘Error’ and ‘Illusion’ and ‘Metaphor’ are all themselves very much modeled ideas.
You truly understand the idea of ‘Model’ when, and only when, you see that there are, never were, any such things as ‘Models’. And no one here naively succumbing to any modeled-understanding. Or awakening in an exit from them.
But until you are in sight of Shūnyam, the notion of ‘Model’, its use as pedagogic tool, can be very helpful. In fact, indispensable.