Droog,
Well, I was a bit troubled by what I'd typed above, so before I came back here and saw your post, I had another look over the thread. You have more description than I remembered seeing, but still--you provide a broad overview of the game, over a very long time. If the game was examined at a much smaller scale--the scale I think is typically used to tell someone they're unconsciously trying to play Nar but getting it wrong--I wonder what the results would be.
But no, I don't have to insist you don't know how you played. As I've written in the past: this issue of "prioritize" is where the whole thing slips into subjective impressions based on subjective definitions. RPGs must have "exploration". Ron says that some alleged Sim is "really" Nar with a "strong explorative chassis" and uses this to diagnose unfulfilled Nar yearnings. However, there's really no way to say, objectively, when the "exploration" is being prioritized over the "premise", or vice-versa, because you can't do away with exploration entirely. Try to do so, and you either leave the RPG realm, or the exploration pushes back and gets itself prioritized. Conversely "Nar with a strong explorative chassis" looks suspiciously like gaming which simply can't completely eliminate the "human questions". I sure doubt that yours did--so why is it Sim, again?
And finally, while Ron has claimed to see some games that really didn't concern themselves with "human questions" ("premises"), it has sounded to me suspiciously like someone just didn't appreciate the speed or intensity at which those things appeared. I mean some people think Spielberg is a great director and not at all heavy-handed, those same people might think Tarkovky's films aren't about anything.
To sum up, you know how you played but the language of GNS is too feeble to assist you in communicating it to an audience.
Back to your roleplaying--that's the thing. You were pretending to be characters. D&D offered this in a package, but it added a formal power hierarchy (a GM) uniquely suited to representing the world-character divide. Ron wants to believe that this wasn't central to D&D's appeal and success--that informal worldbuilding in Tekumel & Glorantha, solitary and without individual character focus was "proto-roleplaying". (Why is this different from what Tolkien did? Or any other fantasist?) In my opinion, this is a distortion of history motivated by a desire to portray the world/character split as a contingency, an accident, rather than as the key innovation turning "play pretend" into a viable adolescent/adult activity--and also to deny that "play pretend" (pretending to be your character, or visualizing the situations of the game as if you yourself were maneuvering through them) was the main impetus for RPGs' popularity, as opposed to player-empowered collaborative storytelling.