The general consensus that "rules-as-written" with respect to D&D 3.5 means
the core rulebooks, followed by their errata, followed by any later published source book and it's errata that does not contradict a previously published rulebook.
This comes from a very strict reading of the blurbs included at the beginning of each source books' errata, without taking into account the clear intent of the provided examples. This text has changed over time (possibly complicating the matter). This text in the Spell Compendium's errata
When the text within a product contradicts itself, our general policy is that the primary source (actual rules text) is correct and any secondary reference (such as a table or character's statistics block) is incorrect. Exceptions to the rule will be called out specifically.
By the understanding of this text espoused on this site, a later published source book cannot change any rules covered in a previous source book; thus allowed only to create something new or add to something (although I would argue; this is change and in many cases, contradictory). This is evident by the discussions on the Rules Compendium. The RC is not even an entirely original work, but one that ties in expansion rules from various source books into on volume. By stating that the RC is in violation; the consensus says the RC sources are too in violation (all the Complete series, et al).
It is my understanding (quite contrary to the "consensus") that this text was to prevent an error in a table or a secondary reference from being propagated when it contradicted the primary reference. This was not intended to prevent source books and errata from changing, expanding, formalizing or otherwise creating contradictions to the existing rules.
This site's consensus invalidates any answer that quotes from any source that "contradicts" a previous source and stifles understanding. Further, it invalidates any answer that quotes an faq or rules of the game article, if "rules-as-written" is in the question tags.
1) Convince people to abandon this approach that invalidates much of the published material.
2) Create a new tag, rules-strict and use this for this narrow reading of the errata directive.
3) To avoid confusion, answer any question where a rule is mentioned in more than one reference with a section of rules-blocks;
(Strict errata reading) information pertaining to original core books, DMG/PHB + it's own errata, disregard anything else
(Errata reading where source book can alter the rule) Expansion
source book + it's errata [likely only need to look to RC for 99%]
(Additional material - technically non-RAW but may aid in
understanding) Faq, web article, published adventure, et al
This seems a bit extreme, but would at least provide the OP with all the information and they can make an informed decision.