Reading that wall of text, it's got me thinking. You're right, I may be right on the "unreliable narrator" front. But I've chosen second-person because the narrative I believe I'm looking for goes a bit further than the norm. What I'm talking about is not so much the narrator describing your state of mind in an usual orthodox way, but rather the very grammar and all associated with it itself gives off what the protagonist's state of mind is.
For instance, say we describe a statue. Full details, perfect punctuation, no run-ons, whatsoever. This should give the reader that they are in a calm state. No worries, no troubles, anything of that sort.
Then we go on to a scene where that same statue is there, but this time reflected in a panicked, nearly hysterical state of mind. The bare minimum of details are just able to squeeze in, punctuation starts taking hits, run-ons for ages. Hell, if to go so far as to say the character goes insane, sentences, both in narration and dialogue become a literal mess to just simply look at.
Perhaps from a first-person view, it may work, but from a third-person view, it may not work as intended, since we can only describe so much on how insane the character is going. Reason I choose second-person is as you said: You tend not to find outside of CYOAs. Well, CYOAs gets the reader engaged, for the most part, which is why I believe second-person may be the one I'm going for.
Even if I'm not doing CYOAs.