That whole “There is Q. There are Anons. There is no Qanon”, thing was so absurd, right from the start. It was a pointless semantic distinction that some people elevated to a profound insight of some sorts.
I remember being lectured by Qanon purists for using the term Qanon “incorrectly”, even though there was no confusion about what I was referring to. Why Q thought that it was an important distinction to make is beyond me, but it could very well be what it sounds like your suggesting - offering a straw man for true believers that they could use to dismiss any argument on the basis of incorrect terminology. (i.e. If you don’t even know the difference between “Q” and “Qanon”, then there’s no point in even debating you).
It was absurd. It was very much like the Russian “vranyo” which can be summarized by “I know I’m lying, you know I’m lying, and I know you know I’m lying”. For the purists, it’s an article of faith that they must recite to all non-believers.
Very simply Q is the higher up - person or persons dropping the messages (with some false flags since the enemy of the state also listens in) and anons (Qanons if you prefer) are those doing the research to figure it all out.
At a minimum it does give us researchers some solace (and learned patience) as we await the ‘NCSWIC’ ~ justice for the traitorous treasonous deep state.