> As you fall into a black hole the event horizon shrinks away below you and from your own POV you never cross it.
No, this is not correct. To the extent that the horizon is something that can be "seen" at all, you see it when you cross it. It doesn't shrink away below you.
> I suppose from the internal perspective, Hawking Radiation manifests as a rain of negative energy.
This is a common heuristic picture, but it is very limited. No real particles fall into the hole as a result of Hawking radiation. An observer already inside the horizon might be able to deduce that Hawking radiation was being emitted from local observations on, say, the tidal forces in his vicinity, but I'm not sure even that would be true: the models I am familiar with for evaporating black holes do not require any causal connection at all between the emission of Hawking radiation and any particular observer inside the horizon (in more technical language, the two remain spacelike separated for the entire trajectory of the observer inside the horizon).
No, this is not correct. To the extent that the horizon is something that can be "seen" at all, you see it when you cross it. It doesn't shrink away below you.
> I suppose from the internal perspective, Hawking Radiation manifests as a rain of negative energy.
This is a common heuristic picture, but it is very limited. No real particles fall into the hole as a result of Hawking radiation. An observer already inside the horizon might be able to deduce that Hawking radiation was being emitted from local observations on, say, the tidal forces in his vicinity, but I'm not sure even that would be true: the models I am familiar with for evaporating black holes do not require any causal connection at all between the emission of Hawking radiation and any particular observer inside the horizon (in more technical language, the two remain spacelike separated for the entire trajectory of the observer inside the horizon).