Okay, maybe "narrative" was the wrong choice of words. Maybe "more than they want explanations." Kubrick went out of his way to avoid explaining anything that happened in the movie -- which is what makes him such an odd pairing with Arthur C. Clarke, who explained everything in the novel version. (I remember people complaining about the film 2010 explaining why HAL went crazy, calling it an unnecessary retcon on the movie's part -- but that explanation was already there in the novel of 2001, written simultaneously with the original film. And of course in the novel 2010 that was then made into the movie.)
The shattered wine glass was all we needed to know about why HAL broke down. He broke because he was made by human hands, because humans have accidents. While I didn't mind the explanation given in 2010
(I'm not going to look it up in the text, but I seriously doubt it was called a Hofstadter-Möbius loop
or a "Hofstadter" anything in the book, since Gödel, Escher, Bach
was published in 1979), in and of itself it was ultimately yackety technobabble of no consequence, except possibly to help establish that HAL was "cured". Furthermore, like most technobabble, it raised more questions than it answered, and on close inspection wasn't really convincing.
I think it's unfair to criticize 2010
too much for any of those reasons, though (and also it'd be unfair because of the reasons you give), because ultimately 2010
was a different kind of film than 2001,
for a different audience. I enjoyed 2010
much less, but I was still entertained by it. And they got enough of the band back together.