For me a claim that rules are in some sense inferior to rulings is extraordinary, and important. The D&D rules are foundational to the D&D game - the game literally would not exist, were it not for those rules. Thus I am not content with the appeal you are making, because I think it misrepresents the authority in question, and because I think we're able to add worthwhile thinking to what they have said. Especially by considering the work of philosophers on rules and meaning.
Hence I don't believe it was the project of the designers to make rules inferior to rulings. For one thing, that contradicts the commercial intent of professional designers, who, ultimately, are designing products for use. Their livelihood depends on the value of the rules and narratives they sell.
This is a nuanced argument, and while I'm trenchant in debating it, I do so to learn. I'm interested in why some DMs have taken designer comments that amount to authorising DM fiat, to argue for an absence of concrete meaning in any of the D&D RAW. If that is what they are doing?