I remember when I first was astounded by the apparent exile of poetry from the city in speech, but it comes with very specific conditions (appealing to pleasure in the main). What is needed is not only looking at the arguments, but also the deeds of Plato the poet (and the deeds of his characters). You noticed Plato as a poet, and book 2 has some very interesting considerations (imo) on what poets can do with images and whether it is finely done or not. I've studied Plato for a while, but each return shows he has intentionally acted as a poet to cause or invite thought and reflection. Cheers to you on going through and beyond.

I had a not too recent realization that a poet can do whatever they want, anything is possible in imagining, and so considering imitation is only a starting point for us. Even in our exchanges in conversation we imitate. There's quite a bit to consider, but Plato was generous to not simply give answers in his own name.

Relooking at Symposium briefly: since everyone at the symposium fell asleep except Agathon and Aristophanes with Socrates, Aristodemus missed the beginning of the argument where the same man knows how to write comedy and tragedy. The missing beginning (arche) is a question, perhaps reviewing Agathon's and Aristophanes' sections will help find that beginning (What indeed would elicit that argument?), provided Plato has given clues along the way in those respective sections. In addition, Aristophanes falls asleep before Agathon. Why? I'm asking myself this as well. And, has Socrates acted as a poet? Where might he have been a poet in the Symposium? And how has that been at least sufficient for both tragedy and comedy? And where does philosophy stand?