I'll begin by saying that each LR or journal is run differently...
But coming up with a "unique" point of view or argument is stupid for LR. It may be possible that graders are given the freedom to judge however they want and just give high scores to submissions they like. You end up with inconsistency among graders, however. It's more likely that graders have an outline that tells them how many points they can allocate for specific things/points, and then a chunk of points for grammar, clarity, etc.
When I graded submissions, I came across only one paper that was so stellar that *despite* missing most of the points that we were looking for, I recommended an invitation for journal. Most people that tried to "think outside the box" merely came across as missing the point, no matter how clearly and well structured they were while doing so. Therefore, I DO NOT recommend that you get the creative juices flowing for law review write on. It worked out for the last poster, but it's rare.
And for the OP...it's way late, as you're already done, but if anyone else stumbles across this thread: If citations are confusing, you need to stop what you're doing and take a breath. The bluebook and citations aren't that hard. If you can identify the what it is you are citing, you go to the index, find it, and slowly and methodically follow the examples in the bluebook. It's rare to find something that isn't in there. If the authors of the citation problems have put something *that* complex on there, then don't stress about it, because everyone else will be struggling just as much.