Docs/strategy: clarify gametau positioning, target app class, and non-goals

[devallibus]

Summary

gametau has a coherent core idea, but the public story will stay blurry unless the project states more plainly what it is for and what it is not trying to be.

Why this matters

• Users should not have to infer the intended app category from examples and issue threads.
• Clear non-goals reduce feature creep and architecture sprawl.
• A tighter product statement makes the existing technical work easier to evaluate honestly.

Suggested scope

• Write a short public positioning statement for gametau.
• Name the target application category more explicitly.
• Publish explicit non-goals.

Topics to clarify

• Is gametau a game engine, an application toolkit, or something narrower?
• What classes of apps is it best suited for today?
• What is intentionally out of scope for the core project?
• What claims about runtime parity and deployment are justified today vs aspirational?

Acceptance criteria

• The README and site lead with a concise positioning statement.
• The docs include a non-goals section.
• Package descriptions and examples align with that positioning.
• The public narrative no longer overstates maturity or scope.

Related

• Brainstorming: evolve gametau from runtime portability to execution-topology portability #154