The tag has its current name for a good reason: For people who hang out in RPG forums and are familiar with RAW/RAI arguments it precisely describes what it's all about, and I know a lot of our users who follow the tag come from that environment.
Unfortunately, a lot of the new users who wander into RPG.SE don't come from that environment, and aren't actually looking for a strict RAW analysis when they use the tag. They have a question about rules, that's the only major tag with the word "rules" in its name (since, as mentioned, we blacklisted the rules tag for being both a meta tag and uselessly vague), so they slap it on their question even though their question has nothing to do with how the RPG.SE community would like the tag to be used (or with how the greater RPG Internet community would understand the tag's name).
Renaming the tag has been proposed before and received a somewhat positive response from the community (as of this the post, the proposal is +6/-3). As mentioned above, the phrase "rules as written" has a very distinct meaning in a broad swathe of the community that perfectly encapsulates how the tag is intended to be used, and the tag's adherents would be absolutely correct to say that changing it to anything else will cost it clarity with users coming from those parts of the greater RPG community. But the current phrasing is also causing a lot of misuse (which as mentioned, is the fault of the blacklisted rules tag rather than the RAW tag itself).
The linked proposal suggested answer-must-quote-rulebook or answer-requires-rules-citation. Those are both clunky and have the added problem of emphasizing another aspect of the tag that has been the subject of contention (its tendency to restrict answers rather than describing the question). Personally I would prefer something that doesn't contain the word "rules" at all to properly take care of the tag's recurring misuse; at the very least any new tag name shouldn't start with the word "rules".