Your argument is confusing and convoluted, so if I misinterpret this I apologize in advance.
MasterCrew appears to be arguing that "write as it comes" moments in role playing are bad.
Whereas you are arguing that action economy is... Wait, where did this come from? What the hell is an "action economy" exactly? Also how do interpretations of genre--IE "Gritty" Dark Fantasy versus "Gritty" Real Life--Have anything to do with what MasterCrew there is saying. He's arguing stability versus planning, you're arguing interpretation of genre. Which has... Nothing to do with either of those things, generally. Maybe... Very loosely?
So I guess I'll address both statements.
To MasterCrew's Statement: "Write as it comes" as a natural thing for a role play. It is the entire basis of a role play, one of the fundamental differences between role playing and writing--which are not the same thing--and is unavoidable unless you rail road your players to death. (Rail road: To take away your players choices and force them onto your train called 'plot'. Choo choo.)
Players having choices, and committing to actions in the heat of the moment, is what role playing is about. Taking that away kills the one thing players all universally have--choice--and defeats the purpose of continuing or even creating a role play. End of debate. At that point just go write a novel and don't waste the precious time of players who want a GM or a DM, not a wannabe author.
To Martingale's tangential statement: To alleviate genre confusion, simply don't use an ambiguous descriptor--like "gritty"--and use something which is more concrete and universally accepted. Like fantasy. If you feel that still isn't enough, use additional terms. IE: Gritty Dark Fantasy with Steampunk elements set in the world of Greyhawk.
There you go.
If someone somehow misconstrues that, then they're either brain dead or not worth your time.
Anything else I have to reply to, or is this little discussion dead already?