Based on what Zachiel drafted up and Baskakov_Dmitriy's conclusions plus the What, exactly, is the RAW tag for? meta's answers, I suggest this as a possible tag warning:
Questions about the rules as written are those which:
Are investigating as a priority literal interpretations of the rules, even if it leads to absurd situations.
Are not ...
I think it is a good idea and I think it should read something like this:
A Rules-as-written question does not simply ask about the rules of a game. It implies finding out the most literal (even if improbable) reading of what has been written in the game aids.
By adding this tag, you're asking the answer to avoid speculation about authoral intent ...
What is actually [rules-as-written]? We should find out!
Some time ago, being very new to the site, I tried to understand the nature of the rules-as-written tag. I did make a mistake (?) of marking my question about game rules with rules-as-written tag, and I did make a mistake of basing my answer for a rules-as-written question on a house rule, because ...
This site operates on a definition of rules-as-written that
Does not conform to its wider usage outside this site, and ignores the folk taxonomy
Was unilaterally determined by two members of the site
Who, it must be pointed out, have an avowed “hatred” of the very concept. Their word.
Ignores community consensus disagreeing with that definition.