Nonfiction vs Autofiction cage match

Let's say for a moment that there was a conceptually or philosophically cromulent project in writing in first person, and that you were capable of manipulating reality in some way, manipulating the reality of your own life and the way you visualize it, the shape and impact of your memories, of what use is that to the rest of us, and I understand that people out there find the lives of others to be useful to contextualize their lives on earth. But what material difference does it make. What alchemical transformation is actually possible and for whom. 

(This "fi" combo needs a ligature)

I read, third-hand (I'm guessing) about a famed autofictioniste who said that the form was able to unsaddle writing from metaphor. I'm always incredulous about such strident/confident remarks. The excerpt attached to the essay, something about getting ready to eat breakfast maybe??? was absolutely able to be read metaphorically. There is no amount of artifice or fictiveness that can be stripped away from a writing practice that eliminates its capacity to be read metaphorically. That is the license of the reader. In fact all language is in essence a metaphor. If we believe metaphor to be the connecting of two disparate items through a magical tissue, that tissue being the reader or listener and their subjective interpretational faculties, subjective to such an extent that the mechanics of the tissue cannot, MUST NOT, be articulated, because that would be an analogy wouldn't it? If you can articulate what bearing a metaphier has on its dual, you are essentially pinning down the relationship (whether like, as, in contrast, because of, or any number of comparative situations). 

A word is a metaphier for the thing it refers to. We can do all manners of etymological analyses of the word but still only get within an impossible arm's reach between the word and the thing. Its relationship is asymptotic. It requires faith. The tissue of magic remains. So metaphor, in this sense and the more traditional or extended sense, is going nowhere. 

I have, because I read something offhanded about diminishing the role of analogy in Robbe-Grillet's Towards a New Novel, tried to limit my use of the device almost entirely. It is definitively something achievable. The impact of its absence as uncertain. My hope is that it strives for such a concrete reading lens that every aspect of the text can be read metaphorically. I would imagine at the time he was writing Towards a New Novel Robbe-Grillet did not see his work as highly metaphorical. Maybe (maybe?) in the 1970s. But my conjecture is that like the aforementioned autofictioniste, A R-G saw his work as being simply "writing", divorced from psychological or interpretive metaphoricity. 

What I'm trying to back myself into here is wondering about the form of nonfiction. Is that a type of writing that, and an invitation to readers that, no interpretive framework need to be brought to bear. Because it is true, objective, universal (I know that nonfiction is not objective so chill, baby), then it simply is what it is. I don't have a vested interested in shedding metaphor. As I said, I don't think it is technically possible. Even if something can be interpreted, the way it suggests its use to the reader can suppress the benefits of interpretation. I think this is the true power of the nonfiction form, to arrive at a txt that is simply looked at. Maybe that's the power of autofiction too, but I couldn't be arsed to find out.