I have an alternative proposal: do a study right the first time. That means: A) Pre-registering the study design, including the statistical analysis. Otherwise, attaching a big label "Exploratory! Additional confirmation needed!" B) Properly powering the study. That means gathering a sample large enough that the chances of a false negative aren't just a coin flip. C) Making the data and analysis (scripts, etc.) publi…
Your proposal is comparable to saying that checks and balances are not needed in a democracy, politicians just need to govern "right". This is about incentivising scientists to do the right thing instead of merely demanding it, like you do.
How is advocating for a new set of best practices any more "demanding" or wishful than a regime of obligatory replication? And how is this categorically different from current practices such as peer review, disclosing conflicts of interest, an IRB, etc.?