That's probably a good idea, just know that there are multiple, totally valid interpretations of the suttas.
Now, hold on a minute.
There are some things which you can call interpretation. And there are some things which you can not call interpretation.
One group claims that these things continue to arise in the Anagami, but they don't "hook" like they used to.
And either the suttas say that. Or the suttas do not say that, and say the opposite. Or the suttas say neither.
Only when the suttas say neither, when the suttas in all instances of addressing the topic are unclear about whether sense desire arises past a certain point, then, and only then, we can talk about interpretation.
As soon as the suttas make a statement about the topic, and you go against the explicit meaning of the words, you are not interpreting anymore. You are adding to the text then. You are innovating. You are commenting. You are not trying to find out what the text means, but you have found that out already, and are now adding your own opinion, which is going against the message of the text. That's innovation. Not interpretation.
Dharma people in West and East alike are often very bad at making this distinction, because in traditional Dharma innovation is forbidden. And this situation annoys me to no end.
I mean, if someone is using those texts as a basis for practice, then they have to use them as they are. When they disagree with them, then they should be open about that disagreement, and say it like it is: "The fetter model is wrong. The suttas are wrong. What the Buddha taught is wrong. What I am teaching is not the dharma, but something else. An innovation based on it, but different in regard to various key points"
It would be rather refreshing to hear those honest words from somewhere, and not have cowards hide behind the mask of "interpretation" for once. We in the West, especially when we are talking about pragmatic dharma, are in a position where we can do that.
The other group claims that these things don't arise at ALL, meaning that if ill will EVER arises now, or at any point in the future, you cannot be an Anagami, which to me seems outlandish at best.
Which is an opinion one can hold. The problem I have is that the texts seem to stand pretty firmly on the side of the "hardcore fetterists". When that is the case, and when the dharma is defined by what the texts say, then that's the dharma, and the other opinion is not. Unless the texts are unclear on the issue (which AFAIK they are not), it is not open to interpretation.
It's open to innovation though. Don't confuse those terms please.
As soon as you make a statement that is opposite to the meaning of the text, you are not interpreting anymore. You are innovating. You are commenting. You do not try to get the meaning out of the text (because you know that the texts say that certain things don't arise anymore), but you are adding your own spin, because you disagree with some statements the texts make. And that is fine.
tl;dr: But, please, don't call things interpretations, when they are not that. It annoys me to no end.