Unless a GM is reciting the game text verbatim, it's all narrating based on direction. EDIT Also, which side is bitten is a fair example."Narrating based on direction" does not strike me as particularly simulationist, although perhaps you have an example in mind? (Eg upthread I mentioned that RM, unlike RQ, doesn't always give left or right side of the body, but that sometimes that is answered by other parameters of the situation, like knowing which side of the character a biting giant ant was on.)
I would agree with your above, so I suppose I am not understanding what you really mean. We agree that a game can have a setting that it nevertheless fails to count as a simulation of, right?Upthread I pointed to a number of ways in which Torchbearer, while keeping some of the elements of PC build found in Burning Wheel, drops the simulationist aspects of PC building (ie BW lifepaths) in exchange for "choose from list A and list B and . . ." (ie class, hometown, social, specialty, PC relationships with a cap of 3, starting gear limited by carrying capacity).
The conflict system is not simulationist at all, given that outcomes are based on a negotiated compromise.
Non-conflict action resolution isn't either - it has some simulationist trappings, in the way obstacles are set, but the actual resolution process allows all sorts of non-simulationist interventions (choices about fate and persona, nature, traits, etc) and then the way consequences of failure are narrated is not simulationist at all (and is, rather, an example of the GM saying something that follows).
The systems for scene-setting - especially camp and town phase - are also very non-simulationist, even moreso than Gygax's city/town encounter matrix in Appendix C of his DMG.