RE: In “Apocalypse World” not speaking the name of your move is a rule for GMs, not players
"I Go Aggro" is the "I hit it with my sword" of the PtbA games.
In a very literal sense.
There is a serious disconnect built into the system about how and how much narrative the player is supposed to bring to the table. The GM is instructed explicitly that they should be a narrative-first, but the players are given that this short menu of options and told defectively that everything that they will do will fall into these forms of interaction with the world - and they should keep that in mind. At all times.
Yes, sometimes "I hit it with my sword," is what you've got. The task resolution loop in AW-derived games spends a lot of time accidentally (?) pushing players to engage with the narrative environment while simultaneously making doing so a less rewarding experience.
...the players are given that this short menu of options and told defectively that everything that they will do will fall into these forms of interaction with the world - and they should keep that in mind. At all times.
I think this is an inaccurate portrayal of the rules. Can you quote them in support of what you're asserting?
No, they're not told that. That's a misunderstanding of how the game works. If you do something that doesn't map to a move you still do it, it just doesn't happen to be attached to a particular snippet of mechanical procedures. (What will often happen in situations like this is that after you say you do something you'll be looking at the GM expectantly to know what the results of that action are, which is their trigger to make a move, and you've just set them up so that "Tell them the consequences and ask" will feel like a very natural move to make.)
The players should definitely have the moves in mind (at all times might be excessive). This is what grounds and orients you to the milieu of the game. The knowledge that Going Aggro or Seizing By Force are very reliable and effective ways of getting what you want are part of the way the game brings you into the mindset of the post-apocalyptic characters of Apocalypse World, for example. This doesn't mean the moves are the only things characters can do. "What do you do?" should not be read as "What move do you make?".
I could be wrong, but it sounds to me like you're trying to map Apocalypse World into some other model of how games work rather than taking it on its own terms. AW doesn't ask you to think in terms of a "narrative", if I'm not mistaken it actively discourages it (I know Dungeon World discourages you from thinking in terms of "story").