I think there is a significant misunderstanding here of what PREMIS is and how it can be implemented. In general, PREMIS is a data model with a data dictionary - it is implementation agnostic. So an xml - much less a "complex PREMIS XML" is not needed to implement PREMIS. Furthermore, not the full data dictionary has to be implemented. If you look at the PREMIS data dictionary, there are clear indicators of what semantic units are mandatory and which are optional. Also - semantic units, when being implemented, don't have to be called the same as in the Data Dictionary for PREMIS conformance. To give an example - the objectIdentifier from the object entity doesn't have to be called that - it can just as well be called MessageIdentifier. The only limitation is that you should not implement semantic units of the same name as PREMIS semantic units but store different semantic information in them (e.g., including a file format PUID in an objectIdentifier).
As a community, we are not doing ourselves a favor by saying that PREMIS is complex and no one uses it ... all values described in PREMIS as key preservation metadata - things like file preservationLevel, significantProperties, size, format, creatingSoftwareApplication ARE crucial information in EVERY preservation process. You stress that interoperability is what you wish to prioritize - and PREMIS achieves exactly that.

I would therefore strongly recommend that you map the metadata you describe in the spec, such as messageID, against the PREMIS dictionary as the most important lingua franca of preservation metadata. And via completing this mapping you actually ARE using PREMIS. In a conformant way :-)

Also, you can implement PREMIS using just the object entity without having to implement the events entity, if you feel it does not serve your purpose. Your answer seems to suggest that events would have to be implemented for full PREMIS conformance (see PREMIS conformance document, Level 1 A - conformance through mapping, object entity only).

I'm agreeing with @asciim0 here.

You don't have to implement the whole of the PREMIS data dictionary to be compliant and you can have your own names but don't have the same name as in PREMIS and give it another definition. (All already written)

I also came to the conclusion that what you are talking about in the final end of implementing is the object which in its turn can be connected to events but its totally up to you in the creation of the implementation to decide how much of PREMIS that are being implemented.

The conformance statement is found here: Conformance statement

Thanks all for you're feedback on this. We also got some helpful feedback in the spec doc that I'm cross-linking. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BZHklc6MKktXJBPcvFvlxLRoX8lCidFemflppqpUQ7s/edit?disco=AAAAXknfrwI
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BZHklc6MKktXJBPcvFvlxLRoX8lCidFemflppqpUQ7s/edit?disco=AAAAXknfrw4
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BZHklc6MKktXJBPcvFvlxLRoX8lCidFemflppqpUQ7s/edit?disco=AAAAXknfrww

We'll keep this open until we decide to restate our conformance in the spec and/or include the XML examples.

Addressed by #9. XML examples included in the repo and linked from README.md