Comparing to DW - which I have read, and even played a little bit of - the concept of "fronts" also seems much more at home in AW. I can see how that sort of technique relates to the idea of the non-status-quo.
I've been thinking of trying to do some DW with my group some time in the not-too-distant future, but now I'm thinking AW looks more interesting. (If also more challenging, because I think it would push me as a GM in ways that I'm not used to being pushed.)
DW is, with respect, a watered down AW. It doesn't quite have the grit and verve of the Apocalypse. The character moves don't give the players the same raw potency, and the GM principles and procedures aren't as strong. I've always maintained that Dungeon World is written in a way which assumes - I might go as far to say relies upon - having played (not just read) Apocalypse World.
When it comes to a discussion on 'status quo', I think it's important to see it in context. The driving theme in AW is 'scarcity'. Everything is scarce. Water, shelter, friendship, warmth, fuel, food, ammunition, tools, knowledge, medicine, transport... everything anyone wants and needs is hard to get. And anytime someone has it, someone else wants to take it. So everything is precarious, everything is under pressure.
A character may have a nice rifle, but where do they get bullets from? And what happens if the bullet-making guy moves on? And where does that guy get his lead from, or his powder? They can dry up, right? Where do your ragtag 40 survivors get water from? Food? You got a windmill running a generator - who can fix it? Who's got wood and spare parts? Who's got the know-how? What's stopping Ol' Jake from burning it down in the night?
I get the gist of where you're going with your 'the setting is the situation' line. I think it's easier to think of it as a game where there is no 'adventure' seperate from day-to-day living.