I have a fondness for DCC which will always be the apex example of an OSR game in my mind. It is charming, weird, playful, and a bit incoherent; but its incoherence stems from a deep-anchored chaos that determines its style and feel.

ACKS does not occupy the same galaxy of concepts as DCC in my mind; your work on and emphasis of simulationism is only a single, if prominent, example explaining the totally different feel of ACKS from DCC.

It is most practical in the current context to consider "OSR" not as a historical moment but as a "living" philosophy which is a rough constellation of ideas evolved from "We're Not 4th Edition D&D." The main thrust against 4E D&D was that it wasn't D&D. The problem is that it was also a very tightly designed game, in many respects, and its more prolific detractors shunned that in favor of deep chaos. These points are irrevocably wound up in the meaning, presentation, and expectations of "OSR."

Today, Rule Zero and "rulings, not rules" and all the other undermine-your-own-game nonsense is unfortunately a core component (even if only implicit) in the OSR mindsphere. Your work on the role of referees, and thus your attitude towards these ideas and where they lead, aligns you strictly against the mindsphere on this and many other points.

Essentially, it may be worth considering positioning yourself as an ALTERNATIVE to the OSR mindsphere. There are many factors to weigh, but apparent misalignments of this nature can create serious friction.