Does the omission of the first part of a hyphenated compound run afoul of Chicago?

The top answer to the question Suspended hyphen in "ever-expanding and contracting gulf"? states that "ever-expanding and -contracting" runs afoul of Chicago. (I would have asked this question in the comment section of that answer if I had enough reputation to do so.) The argument is that Chicago 7.84 (7.89 on my 15th edition) explicitly rejects "overfed and -worked mules," which would be "functionally indistinguishable" from the phrase in that question. However, Chicago‘s rejection comes under a paragraph referring to solid compounds. Does it follow that it must apply to hyphenated compounds as well?

Answers to related questions, such as Is it correct to say “inter- disciplinary/national” instead of “interdisciplinary and international”? and Hyphenating Multiple Compound Adjectives With Common First Word suggest that the suspended hyphen may be acceptable, even if "clunky" or "odd," but the responders did not sound too sure ("You might get away with", and "You could certainly try") nor they mention Chicago or any other source.

Although my question is general, the phrase that prompted it was "estimation of eye-pose and eye-shape parameters." If I were to ask about a specific construction, my question would be "Does ‘estimation of eye-pose and -shape parameters’ violate Chicago rules?"