Greenaway and the Punishment of Sins

I've only seen a few of Peter Greenaways films, so I can't flesh this theory out as well as I'd like.

But upon rewatching The Draughtsman's contract, I was reminded of both The Baby of Macon and The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover. All three of these films seem to operate in a similar manner. A table is set. All the necessary implements are laid in place. A central character is given time and full license to display a sin, of sorts. And finally, in the end, the jaws of a cunningly contrived trap click shut upon that central character, seeming somehow to punish the sin in question -- if not always justly, at least in a narratively satisfying manner.

In The Draughtsman, the sin is blindness, or naivete. The Draughtsman is punished for failing to perceive the true nature of his environment and his place in it.

In The Cook, the sin is greed. The Thief is punished for seeking to consume the world

And in The Baby, the sin is vanity and its attendant narcissism. The Daughter is punished for failing to understand nothing given ever comes without a price, however free it might seem.

In all three cases, the punishment fits the "crime" to an almost absurd degree. Blindess is punished by blinding. Overconsumption is punished by forced cannibalism. And beauty is raped to death.

Do other Greenaway films follow this very simple structure? I've seen A Zed and Two Noughts, The Pillow Book and Prospero's Books, and though it's been a while, I don't recall a similar modus operandi. On the other hand, I have not yet seen Belly of an Architect and Drowning By Numbers, both films held in high esteem by Greenaway fans. Do either of these latter two function as instruments of moral punishment in the manner I've described?