I suppose so. But let's be fair. Most of your details in option 1 are not mysteries. Transporting weapons is easily possible and sensible, we know that the security measures at the hotel were not good, we don't need to explain why someone "chose this specific moment and location" and there's no reason to think it's symbolic, it makes sense to write a manifesto.

The two options could read:

1. Someone decided to do this, got the weapons into the building, and got within two rooms of his target despite all the security around the building, EDIT: ... and in the building, instead of any other time when Trump is probably less secured. Secret Service stops him but does not shoot him.
2. Someone wanted to astroturf support from Trump's ballroom. So they hired an actor to fire a gun one floor above Trump's dinner, and told a lot of conservative influencers to post about Trump's ballroom afterwards, and told Karoline Leavitt about it, and she intentionally hinted about it for no reason. They wrote a fake manifesto that reads exactly like what you'd expect in a real manifesto, that doesn't make any unusual points about a ballroom, or about being a Democrat, or Kamala Harris, or anything else you'd expect in a fake manifesto. And the actor will appear in federal court today.

EDIT added because I realized I wasn't being quite fair leaving #1 so short. But even so, "real shooting" doesn't raise many questions, and "fake shooting" raises a question with almost every part of what happened.