Even on paper sounds dystopian, to be honest.
Ideally, you want to catch mistakes sooner rather than later. People don't want to admit they made a mistake; or people don't want to sincerely criticise others.
One way of fixing this is creating an environment where people feel safe about making mistakes.
AFAIU Bridgewater's approach is the opposite; everything gets exposed. e.g. Modelling different personalities that people have, or whatever, so that these can be taken into account. The upside is stuff like you can tell the CEO you think he did a bad job. The downside is just how exposed it feels compared to normal social/political interaction.
These happy clappy "systems" usually fail to take into account (almost biological) realities of how power structures work.
I'm not familiar with other companies that have the same reputation of using a system like this the same way Bridgewater does.
You have to remember you give real-time feedback during the meeting itself.
> happens all the time
Hmm how do the CEOs react to that? I imagine that the good ones are happy for feedback
The others though?
(I understand if you were exaggerating a bit, wrt "all the time")