I'll let you know when your complaints will be measured, and reasonable, yes.

As usual, the "Pundit Effect" on narrative games seems to bring out the Hatfield/McCoy in everybody.  Let's look at what we are actually talking about.

Someone, I think Sett, has a quote from another gamer that says "If there can't be a TPK without the will of the party, it's not a RPG."  That's basically the thought behind the move.

Let's recap...
In TBZ.
My character cannot die.
Literally cannot die.
No matter what I do.
Unless I, as a player, check the "death box".
It is not expendable, it is not conditional, it is absolute.

Yes, that is one single narrative mechanic placed there for the purpose of literary emulation of the genre.

However, that single mechanic is so fundamentally opposed to a core aspect of IC roleplaying "Do what your character would naturally do, and the world will respond as it naturally would.", that yes, that single mechanic by itself pushes it deeply into the Narrative RPG category.  Now does that by itself make it a storygame?  The RPG/Storygame line isn't a line, so that definition is becoming less useful as narrative mechanics have become the new wave and seem to be present in most new games in some form.

FWIW, I also think Fate is deeply in the Narrative RPG category as well, obviously so, and probably more then AW when in full Aspect mode.

As I've said before, if Pundit is going to separate games, he should relabel the RPG Forum, the "Traditional RPG Forum" and Other games as "Non-Traditional RPGs and Other Games", because that's what the labels really mean at this point.

However, it is always ironically amusing to see people play the Godwin-McCarthy-Pol Pot-Stalin-Genghis Khan card against the Pundit again and again and again.  Try that at awful purple, enworld, or the Roleplaying 2.0 site.  See how far that gets you.