There’s a cool relationship between event and interpretation, which seems to dissolve the idea that any of those actually have answers.
If there were no life in the universe, what then exists? Is there still a meaningful distinction between a lake and a sky, when in fact the same molecules make up both the atmosphere and the lake? Without intelligent interpretation, doesn’t the difference of things become arbitrary because scale becomes arbitrary? Everything starts and ends with equilibrium — for example from the Singularity to Heat Death. What’s in between is just a noisy decomposition process.
To me, it seems like the act of interpretation is vital for anything to be meaningful in the first place. If you play that to its end, it should also mean the interpreting agent plays a role (via its process of interpretation) in assigning meaning to the arbitrary. In effect, it takes what is arbitrary and makes it non-arbitrary. It creates the foundation of knowledge.
So you could also argue, we didn’t actually miss anything. There was nothing of meaning occurring. Any meaning to past events would have to be assigned post-hoc, to an interpretation of past.
Or you could argue, the significance of a human-event is nonexistent if it were never interpreted. I.e., interpretation would have given it significance, though would have probably been phenomenologically interpreted as recognizing significance.