I disagree. I was able to use the model to analyse my RQ game, which supposedly falls under one of the marginalised categories (ie Sim). The model is not about 'your type of game is bad'.
Most of the furore surrounding the model does not actually stem from any ramifications of CA. It stems from dispute over techniques, eg illusionist GMing.
I guess we could discuss what it means to "use the model" for a purpose. People say the model has been used to analyze games, to design games, to analyze play, etc.
In RPG Theory, "using the theory" means almost nothing -- some folks would tell you they were "using the theory" if they thought about it as they wrote or played their game. Contrast this to other theories used in, say, design or even art analysis which provide far more of a framework, predictive models, etc. (TBM/GNS does provide predictive models -- it predicts power-struggle and brain damage -- these are absurd).
I don't think there's a framework which allows one to really use the theory, but let's look at your claim:
You've identifed RQ as a Sim game which, according to the theory, is shorthand for "facilitates the prioritization of the Sim agenda during play."
The Sim agenda is currently undefined -- so it's not really possible to categorize any game as SIM...
Further, the theory doesn't explain *how* a game might facilitate the Sim agenda during play -- it doesn't provide one with a framework for judging mechanics, flavor text, etc.
So any judgement that RQ is a "Sim facilitating game" (whatever that means) is purely ideosyncratic.
Btw: you see this kind of confusion all the time. Is The Riddle of Steel a Nar game or a Sim game or a Gamist-facilitating-game? There are good arguments to be made for all of them. The theory, itself, provides no good guidance... it's all a matter of analyst opinion.
And so-on.
Without knowing what kind of analysis you're performing or what insights the model you're applying delivers, it's hard for me to guess what you're doing (due to the currently-broken-nature of SIM, I doubt you're applying GNS)... What I suspect you're doing is looking at your game through the r.g.f.a lense, and getting some insight from that. Which would make sense.
In a lot of forums, you see someone come in and say, "Hey! All GNS says is that different people come to the game with different priorities! What could be contraversial about that?!"
But, of course, GNS doesn't really say that (to the extent it does say that, r.g.f.a said it better and first) -- GNS has always worked best at the facil, trivial level of assessment. It's not really suitable for deeper analysis or design activities.
Cheers,
-E.