Edwards was pretty clear in stating that anything involving desirable outcomes in terms of those things is Simulationist in his model, and that in his model, Narrativism is specifically about not having a decided idea about where or how things should go. That was new, and distinct, and clearly in contrast with GDS's Gamism, Dramatism, and Simulationism. He picked a really bad name for it. Actually he picked two really bad names for it. And then, from what I've read, got really pissy about reaction to his model.
It really seems to me that a lot of this argument has been due to people not being clear about which of the terminology-sharing models they are using, and, frankly, making it sound like the models are subject to revision through criticism, after 20+ years. In the GDS model, the above example clearly goes under Dramatism. In the GNS model, it clearly goes under High Concept Simulationism. Yes, Edwards erased or co-opted or buried the idea of drama and that sucks, but we already knew that. If you don't like it, it's enough to say, "I don't subscribe to GNS; here's where things go in GDS."
I have by accident of history been more familiar with GNS than GDS. I have been reading up on GDS as this thread unfolds, but I am not familiar enough yet to have confidence applying it to D&D (or anything) in detail. I have already noticed critical differences in detail between the two beyond the top-level category names, but I'm not sure I'll have the time to internalize them so as to write another reponse to the OP in terms of GDS. I'd love it if somebody who is well-versed in it would do so!