"I emailed you." -> "You didn't tell me about it."

"I told you." -> "You didn't put that formally in writing."

"I told you and emailed you." -> "There were other (unspecified) priorities."

There's always an out.

I understand the sentiment. That's the current status quo: keep things verbal, keep them fuzzy, keep an escape hatch handy (i.e., plausible deniability). The whole point of bi-directional accountability (via CBC) is to shut those doors up front. Once you (two or more parties, e.g., leader/report) agree to "do" CBC, you're immediately bound by the methodology, which essentially means a work contract you negotiate and sign off on. Escape hatch removed. The system makes deviations visible, costly, and merit-eroding.

discuss and email the need of a public or shared signed list of priority evaluations, and recommend bumping up the priority of item X.

but I agree, there is always some excuse.

While those who believe in contract driven accountability may constitute a minority, they could start a mailing list to coordinate and discover companies or startups applying these principles, and putting the rules into legally binding contracts and the company bylaws or whatever.

Nothing would happen until a local critical mass was reached, unless the work could be done remote at first. The first such companies could then spin out branches that do non-remote work (lab work, manufacture, ...).