I get where you're coming from, but I think Baker cut the pie in a different way, so to speak. Not that it isn't possible for PbtA games to be more or less crunchy, but as a general rule it isn't 'crunch' in the traditional sense of added rules subsystems and such that doing the work here, it is just what he called layers 2 and 3, the moves and playbooks. The ONLY appreciable differences between AW and DW are in terms of the central thematic premise, and then the actual playbooks and moves. Totally different games, very close to equally Narrativist, with effectively identical mechanics (advancement is handled a bit differently, some bits like that).
The Moves are the game. Also, DW is just different than the mainstream of PbtA games.
I freely admit I slice the pie a little different. The Big Model / GNS doesn't really admit that "narrative" is a thing. It doesn't even mention story as something involved in Exploration. "Developing a story" is a Creative Agenda in The Big Model, which suggests simulationist and gamist games don't have a relationship with story-making. Which would be factually untrue. As I said, Story Now I believe is something present in all fully-formed RPGs, to a greater or lesser extent. The fact that some players may have a greater or less conscious awareness of these principles in an RPG doesn't make "story through exploration" an aspect of specifically narrativist play. How else would story even show up in a "simulationist" experience?
So, not needing the model, I generally don't need the vocabulary, and I tend to avoid the vocabulary in favor of clear language that is understood by people not indoctrinated in the Model. "Narrativist" is a word I don't ever use except when engaging in the Model, and in that case, to criticize the deficiencies I see in it. IMO, Edwards didn't succeed at encapsulating Gamist because he largely did not understand the experiences or motivations of people who wanted to play with the game pieces more.
In my view, because PbtA games tend to veer straight into making "moving parts" out of techniques, PbtA games have a lot of features that are very accessible to gamist play; writing playbooks is the work of someone who really likes writing games, as games. A typical PbtA game has plenty of moving parts that can be employed by someone wanting to play strategically. They also model beats, tropes, and other aspects of their genre; in fact, a PbtA game doesn't exist outself the genre it simulates. They are designed for Story Now by emergently creating actual events, and not just mimicking some kind of structure. Saying a PbtA game is, by design, "narrativist," is automatically just not true. It looks, feels, and smells like something that could easily be called "abashed" and if it's narrativist in play, it's by drifting.
A "narrative" game is not a bunch of die rolls, tables, dials, wheels, and cards. It's a game that exists mostly between the decisions predicated by those things. It is primarily fictive, not mechanistic.
PbtA is pretty darn mechanistic. It is narrative mainly by dint of rewarding play on beats, by using somewhat freeform resolution, and not necesarrily focused on quantitive "competitive" or challenge-based play, but on playing the results. But it's not heavily any of of those things. It's far less narrative than many other formats I've played. In many ways, it offers the structure of one of those hybrid solo RPG / CYOA things, but with the benefit of a game master and multiplayer. You make choices, you roll on a table, some level of favor, disfavor, or overwhelming favor occurs.
It's clearly inspired by the Story Now premise, but in my eyes, it's pretty clearly a hybrid format game that blends Story Now with let's-let-the-dice-decide, I'm-having-a-moment-as-my-PC, and outright cheetoh-ism.
