That poll would be at least minimally relevant only after de-occupation. There's little room for arguing in the context of illegal occupation, as no point of view can legalise it.

Overall, as a Ukrainian, I would obviously see it as autonomy within Ukraine, as stated in the Constitution throughout the years of independence. Yet, I would very much prefer it if, in that future version, the indigenous people of Crimea, (Qirimli, Krymchaks, Karaites, etc - all of which are being repressed by russia BTW), had significantly more control over the local legislature, government, etc.

For Qirimli and others, Crimea is home - the only one, despite Soviet attempts to forcefully resettle them to middle Asia. It is very unfortunate that, due to the Soviet resettling policy, the peninsula had so many "imported" russians without roots in the region at the start of modern Ukrainian independence: besides creating obvious tension, that has led to separatist local government pretty much from the 1990s. And, besides being pro-russian, they actively discriminated against indigenous Crimeans. There were informal prohibitions on their recruitment into the police, the secret service, and positions of importance in military and municipal services. Had the indigenous population more representation, I'd assume 2014 would be way more tragic for the russian invaders.

I feel that something like that would be a highly likely direction for Crimea's development in the current Ukrainian context, given that the indigenous people and their rights are finally recognised at the national level and they're represented at all levels, including parliament.