It's hard to argue that I had justification to think that novel intervention X would have an effect. It turns out it doesn't. Science is often very specialized, there's little chance others would have the very same idea. If it works out, the argumentation would have to be reversed: my idea was very novel and non-obvious but as I show it actually works, which no one would have guessed.
The negative result story only works if the research community would have very strongly expected to see the effect, almost reversing the role of the null and the alternative.
Depends what you mean by "works". If you mean "is reasonably publishable in the current academic climate, then I agree. If you mean "has value", then I disagree.
In particular as that would mitigate problem #3 above ("3. The third, and hardest to solve, problem is not factoring in the whole population of experiments.")
I wish there was more praise for negative results in publication, because whether confirmed or not, the knowledge has value.