Is there a "two worlds" interpretation of the distinction between phaenomena and noumena?

After Peter Strawson’s 1966 essay and for the following twenty years, his reading of the phaenomena-noumena distinction became popular among scholars under the label of “two worlds” interpretation. I first outline Strawson’s interpretation to show that this label deeply misrepresents his views. Strawson, as well as other advocates of the “two worlds” interpretation, never developed an account of this distinction through which appearances could properly be said to exist or to constitute a world. Subsequently, I examine some passages of the Critique of Pure Reason to explain why there cannot be a proper “two worlds” interpretation of this distinction.