OEC “could” work. The Hugh Ross version isn’t the only way it could be approached. It’s easy to let others do our thinking in such areas, harder to approach it ourselves.
Surely I am not the only one who has noticed (even though Ross apparently hasn’t) that these creation days seem to lack noons and afternoons. Their numbering also follows the activity attributed to them. Could it be that the work of the activity itself corresponds to a metaphorical transition from an evening (absence of light) to a morning (appearance of light)? Just to throw another monkey wrench into the discussion. This would make it easier to accept day-age theory.
We have a literally humongous mystery and God’s attitude towards man’s ability to embrace it seems to be encapsulated in His challenge to Job. Our response shouldn’t be even as much wrangling over theories, as awe! Then we might not get into so many Job-like difficulties. Just sayin’.
My thinking is similar to yours.
“creation days seem to lack noons and afternoons”
That’s just the way the jews reckoned days, the day began at sundown and ended at sundown the next day. The word translated as “morning” from the Hebrew doesn’t just mean morning, but can mean the entire “next day” following the evening.