All papers should start with a dictionary? No clearly not, so there's always going to be some assumed knowledge - words change their meaning and have different meaning to different people so we're already on to a loser just with the medium we're using.

So, the possibility of things like, say, a researcher not mentioning something that is standard practice in their lab that later is found to be a crucial part of the setup for an experiment seems high. But just like you don't want to provide a dictionary of standard terms with a paper you don't want to provide a list of the chemicals used to mop the floor, or a list of the lumen and colour temperature ratings of lights in the fume cupboards, or ...

IMO if a paper is not reproducible then yes it should be published but also the original team producing the paper should be challenged to reproduce the results. It's not a fight, we're all on the same team - work with them and try to find the reason for the lack of reproducibility.

Maybe a paper does stand on its own, with the large list of citations at the end. But, maybe some of those citations are journals that your institution doesn't subscribe to, or are historical and in another language, or et cetera.

There is a page limit to publications in high impact journals, and generally it's not great practice to utilize the limited space on the details of hurdles overcome.

I would argue that some of the most important papers in science don't really stand on their own... they need context and expertise that the paper can't and shouldn't cover.