All films are films that require you to see other films to enjoy them. Kieslowski does this more so.
Besides an appreciation for the cinematography and score, the films narrative comes from the mediums mechanisms.

This only works if one knows what’s being subverted, and how that creates a box out of whys. 
The first quarter of the films narrative is told empirically about Weronica. There’s blatant foreshadowing, she performs and succeeds, events follow, until she ‘transcends’ or reaches an end.

Veronique shares a face and a tassel but owns the run time. Less is said about what she does, she just does, and more whys are raised. Where Weronicas epiphany to her father was being not alone, Veronique's is being alone.
The puppet masters control of being, soliciting metamorphosis, entrances her and ‘leads’ her on a fatalist romance. Why did her friends child have his book the night she was over, why was his work on display at a book store as she passed?
The greatest reaction we ever see out of Veronique is when he reveals the strings: why he’s following her.
The reason for his greater focus on her being fails to meet her being, (the shared experience with Weronica). When he finally reveals what he’s written we’re under the impression it’s not him, but that fatalist being/puppet master/director, confronting her being with what she desires the truth to be.

Weronicas narrative is told as this: A series, or telling, of events. (What)
Veronique on the unburnt hand: The contemplation between. (Why)
One of these is known, what (is not), the other can never truly be, why (is).

Perhaps an over analysis, but Kieslowskis desire to make multiple endings (the what), with the ‘meaningless’ run time in the second (why) section, points to this analysis being probable.
More than the series of events, the why (lonely individual), essence is important.