If no one is willing to accept a PR with that provision, the author needs to make their code clearer.
In my experience, people doing a code review don't want to bruise their egos by saying "I don't understand this.". So they superficially check the code and OK it.
Many teams would never actually put in the effort to trace issues back to individual failures in a code review process, when they could be spending the time just fixing the problem and moving forward.
The value trade-off you're suggesting is that the time and effort required to set up this process structure, and shift everyone's work habits over to this, is worth it in... maintenance?... at some point? Reduced risk of some sort?
This seems like a complicated position to argue, can you be any more specific about where and how you see this type of exacting process adding business value?