The aim of disambiguating "skilled play" (quotes, per Snarf's thread) from skilled play (no quotes).
Isn't it just readily inferable once you've played the games in question though?
The goal of a Mouse Guard unit (in Mouse Guard curiously enough) when delivering the mail through a harrowing wood to a neighboring village is going to be fundamentally different (in theme, in systemitization, and in the skillful deployment of moves to achieve the goal) is going to be fundamentally different than Pawns/Murderhobos trying to avoid needless, resource-ablating encounters so they can minimize risk and maximize treasure: encumbrance: time relationships.
I absolutely agree with the goal of disambiguation. But I feel like the "ambiguation" (is that even a word?) is the actual problem to be honest with you. It should be fundamentally obvious that skillful play in one game is going to be different than skillful play in another game. Further still, it should be obvious that the same game that imposes/engenders/incentivizes thematic constraint is absolutely different than skilled play in the same type of game (with similar taxonomical relationships of conflicts and premise at the highest level of the hierarchy) that imposes/engenders no thematic constraint, and/or actually disincentivizes it (!), within the scope of the same sort of play!