I dunno... I think there's a lot of leeway there in DW. I mean, think about how the design of PbtA is explicated as a sort of 'onion'. It seems to me that maybe the way @EzekielRaiden brings out elements in play, and his pacing, could be a bit different from what you, or perhaps the designers of DW, are aiming for. I'm not nearly as convinced that this produces a wildly different game at its core. DW DOES ask for a significant amount of GM prep! You are supposed to produce 'maps with holes', Fronts (up to 5 or more, possibly even more in a substantial campaign), etc. There are also few moves in DW which actually have the PLAYER purely injecting fiction directly into the narrative, vs the more typical situation where the GM is constrained to answer in a certain way, or obligated to ask questions and use the answers.I'm not trying to be difficult, but this response increases my perception that you're running Dungeon World as a D&D campaign with some different mechanics and a bit more player input. Dungeon World's moments of play are meant to be a cascading snowball of peril. Downtime for the characters happens, of course, but it's a montage, off screen, narrated stuff about what they do with the time they have. It isn't moments where you are roleplaying things like researching golem creation by finding and visiting libraries that may or may not have the book you want. This is not how the game is built to run because you can't drive the fiction with failures and framing new dangers because you have to fit in that it's downtime and less threatening. This pulls the teeth from the mechanics.
And, fill their lives with adventure isn't a broad, on average thing. It's a thing you do every moment of the game. All of the principles are. They aren't 70% things, they are 100% things. Dungeon World is meant to focus entirely on the adventure part. The "end of session" rules are the only bits of downtime that Dungeon World acknowledges -- everything else is just narrated, like "I tend the homestead for the winter." This is because of how the move structure works, the need to make soft and hard moves against the characters, and how those moves are framed. Studying to make a golem, for instance, would require soft and hard moves from the GM on checks, but what soft and hard moves are there during a downtime phase where nothing bad is supposed to happen?
And, finally, the adventure you described sounds, again, like a typical D&D adventure and not a Dungeon World adventure. I'm not sure how puzzles work in Dungeon World, but more than 1? Traps, also, are rarely a discreet encounter in DW, but rather complications to other actions. The monsters sound good, though. The overall structure of you example implies that there was a good deal of prep here -- having puzzles to be solved, placing traps to be bypassed. This isn't how Dungeon World is supposed to be played -- if anything, you have a starting situation in mind, a solid prep to set the tone of the dungeon/adventure site and introduce a theme for that dungeon, but, after that, play should spiral very rapidly into places where you can only have a sketch of prep -- a monster roaming the dungeon, or a neat piece of set dressing to use, or a list of likely new challenges if the first one peters out due to lots of great rolls. Puzzles, though? Not really a large part of the DW wheelhouse because puzzles directly test players, and DW is not at all about that. If you're using a puzzle in DW that doesn't test players, by keeping it vague in description or malleable in solution, then you're just asking for die rolls.
There's not a specific moment of play here for me to point to, but overall, when you talk of your Dungeon World game, it feels very off. Not as in not fun, which I'm sure it is, but off to someone that knows how that game works and runs. The things you're talking about feel like they come from a D&D game, not a DW game. The same "oh, and holy poop, then this crazy stuff happened!" is missing, and there's a lot of setting that seeming to be constraining play. Heck, the fact you have an order of wizards and such? In the DW setting (what there is of it), there's just the one Wizard, and he's adventuring. And just the one Fighter. And just the one Barabarian. The conceit is that these are heroes of legend setting out to make that legend, not Bob from accounting that just quit due to a midlife crisis and went adventuring. And, it's not bad to change the setting, not bad at all, but the ways you've related it feel very much like a D&D style setting, where setting is very important and constraining on the characters and comes from the GM (mostly). And that feels like a normal D&D setting.
The point being, while I guess if I was there and playing in that game I might change my mind, there's no real reason to think that the game, as described, is "not really DW" vs that it is simply a DW game in which the style of play is a bit different, and maybe there is more emphasis on people at the table and the story in front of them, vs constantly getting right back to the core techniques in the very next sentence. Since I have paid very little attention to podcasts and such from PbtA authors (or any others) and haven't joined a wide variety of PbtA games run by 'experts' in story games, I cannot even really gauge what is considered 'typical'.
My own games read more like 'Indiana Jones' or something than @EzekielRaiden's do, but as I said earlier that's more me than anything else. I just get all muddled up with too much detail of plots and clues and whatnot and then something crashes through the roof and off we go! Maybe that means I'm the heavy-handed one, lol.