Many of the laws you cite seem to be holdovers from the late '80s and '90s. (Who remembers Michael Douglas in Wall Street; and "Greed is good"?). Many of them seem to be aimed at 'succeeding' regardless of merit, rather than succeeding because of it.

I think this is one of (many) things that very much depends upon the environment in which you work. And that can depend upon the type of commercial entity you work for; the cultural norms of the country or people in charge; and much else besides. Having worked in several countries and for companies from different cultural areas (US -v- EU -v- UK -v- The Orient), I've found that some cultures just "want the job done, don't bore me with the details"; whilst other cultures want to be very much in on all the details.

For example, my (brief) experience of working for a Japanese company was that suppressing technical information in reports to upper management could be viewed as 'lying by omission', whereas including them in a report for US Managers was seen as "waffling". Conversely, when things went wrong in a US company, the immediate priority seemed to be "who's to blame", but in the Japanese company "what went wrong and how do we fix it".

Generalisations both I admit, but just an example.

There also seems to be a correlation between the size of the company and the management level to which technical details are seen as important. In general, the larger the company, the sooner the details get lost in the mire of interdepartmental protectionism.

The toughest decision I ever made was to contradict another consultant, from the same company I was representing, in a meeting in front of the customer. It did not go down well with the other consultant, but I was told that my intervention had saved the contract.

Sometimes, in some places, the technical details at the back of a report, and the honesty and accuracy of those details, is more important than the glossy cover and a flowery management summary.

Were it, that that were true more often.