I am torn in my answer, but as 3 claims that they are subtle, I will go with 1.

So, part of the reason is, as I said, is that I do not think the third statement is accurate. There is more to why I chose 1. The readers do not get to get a first-hand description to the actions, but they still get to analyse it through the state of minds of the characters. One of the novels I read recently is Call Me By Your Name, and this was a key feature. We get to see the story from Elio's mind, and his constant what ifs and what could happen, all the anxiety that these possibilities bring. The psychological is dominant and not subtle - whereas the actions are somewhat blurred. At the first part, the reader is trying to figure the setting, the happenings, the relationships.

Across time of the lengthy novel, we understand through the characters' feelings and thoughts what is happening - along with the increased empathy towards them. In such way, the actions reach a climax and are developed in a very unusual way. Why? Towards the climax of the novel, we are able to understand what is happening through the characters' thoughts. How is that so? I would say it would be sort of empathy, as well as learning the cognitive patterns. Not only are we seeing the actions unfold in front of our eyes, but we are feeling them - we are living them.

Having said this, I know that this can depend on the novel. There would be novels that describe the states of mind without giving clear indications of the story - even until the end. Especially if there are several characters. In a way, the critical response would be that there is no right answer. What if the states of mind are explained in more than just subtle ways? What if we are not led to the actions and it is just a bad novel?