jan Lope o, toki! pona tawa sina.
Maybe it was a mistake from my part to say it's in accordance with pu. It's actually in accordance with Sonja. But I don't distinguish those two entities in regard to toki pona guidance.
The ambiguity may be a strong argument for you, but for me the noun reading is almost completely nonsensical, so ruled out most of the time (maybe even all the time).
While it might be considered pona style to just split all sentences, sometimes this isn't necessary or is just pedantic. If Sonja didn't liked that she wouldn't have created that. Then all sentences would be split like those with mi/sina.
If B in "A la B." has 2 verb phrases, the statement is equally complex and can be even more if A also has. "If noun phrase1 verb phrase1 then noun phrase2 (verb phrase2 - noun phrase1 verb phrase1) (verb phrase3 - noun phrase1 verb phrase1)". And this isn't argument to ruling out this kind of structure. That (of applying the argument of "la" to all verb phrases of the following sentence) is inherent to "la", so prepositions have nothing to do with that complexity. This and that "la" doesn't always mean "if - then". I can't see A la B = B lon A as an exception, since it's a direct consequence of being in some context. The case with prepositions also is consequence of the direct application of the true meaning of "la" "in the context of (being) from this la B", "in the context of using tool la B".
Even if it's an additional rule, it was Sonja who granted it by writing two or more examples in her book and a comment on Facebook.
Problem with that explanation is that after "li" can, indeed, be a preposition, Sonja doesn't even say it acts like a verb there. Although Pije says it does act like a verb there, he then he adds a new category of "action verbs", so more definitions and rules and ike. I'm not willing to keep on with that argument since we already discussed that and reached nowhere ("mi lon tomo." means "I exist in a housey way" whatever that means if "lon" is a verb instead of a preposition).
In your lessons you use "mi moku li pakala" as an example of how to do compound sentences with "mi". But Lesson 16 of Sonja's book says that in the case of "mi" or "sina" (and by extension, "o" too) one should start a new sentence instead of joining the verbs with "li". (more deviation from the main topic
mi wile e ni: sina toki e ijo tawa toki ni. (Do you understand that as "I'm willing for an answer for this"? jw)