I know you've had a response to this from @Emerikol.I also continue to sense a strong sentiment, both here and in the "GM's Notes" thread, that proponents of "living world" play believe their agenda/playstyle is superior to achieve immersion. But I've still yet to hear a convincing argument how and why this is the case. What is so germane and important about the "living world" playstyle to achieve immersion?
From my point of view I wouldn't expect an argument, because the appeal seems to be entirely to experience. And many of those proponents are quite hostile to the sort of analysis that might support a more abstract argument.
For my part, as I've explained already in my post just upthread of this one, I don't find GM narration of everything my PC should already know given his/her connection to and enmeshment within the gameworld very conducive to immersion. That is one reason I find BW's Wises and Circles mechanics appealing; though I can also see the appeal of the PbtA technique of asking questions and building on the answers which lives in much the same functional space though without the same sort of connection to the action resolution mechanics.