I don't usually like to talk about specific mission strategies in public on this list, because discovery is a key item in our core values, but everyone has had a chance to attend a qualifying tournament already. As coaches who have read my responses on this discussion list have seen, you can expect me to discuss some philosophy, and then to evade giving a direct answer to your question. (That's not me trying to be mean, but rather trying to give you a way out if you don't like my answer.)
When a team thinks of an innovative or surprising strategy, the first question to ask is "can we make a persuasive case to the referee that this is okay from the text of the Rules and Missions?" Although GP3, Benefit of the Doubt, is not to be used as a strategy, it is there to help teams who are creative in interpreting the game. Plus, in my personal opinion, the FLL Game Designer always builds in a couple of hidden flexibilities, both for fun and to see who might find them. (One example is the Frogs model this year.)
We have to walk a fine line when looking at the Mission Models and the images on the mat, and assigning meaning to them. Rule GP2 says that "if a detail isn't mentioned, then it doesn't matter." For mission M05, Biomimicry, we know that the Green Gecko and the Biomimicry Wall are distinct things, because both are mentioned. The feet of the Wall are not separately mentioned though, so we have to assume that they are an integral part of the Wall for purposes of the mission.
In real life, it wouldn't make sense to transport a shark outside of its tank, but in the Robot Game, we need to look at the Exact Scoring Requirement information in the mission to see what the referee will evaluate. M01 does distinguish between the walls of the Tank and the floor of the Tank, so we know that those details are important. The walls don't stop being walls because of changes in orientation of the tank, and the floor doesn't stop being a floor either.