If you think the problem can only be solved by management attention, and you cannot demonstrate to your management that the problem is impactful enough that it deserves their attention, either you are incapable of making a clear enough argument to focus on the right problem, or the problem isn't actually as dire as you think it is (or management is bad and wrong, or at the very least mismatches your values).

Two of these are a signal that perhaps you shouldn't be promoted. The third is a signal that you should leave.

In a less generic sense, I think that there are almost always ways to improve incentive structures and encourage people to focus on specific problems that don't directly involve SVPs. Your manager has some control over your rating. If you can argue that "customer happiness" should be a priority and as part of that, end to end bug triage time will impact ratings, you have successfully created an incentive structure that will reward that, without involving anyone who can modify compensation structure.

Many outsiders have noted that googles incentive structure is not around customer happiness in general. Thus articles and discussions like this one.

You're mixing two problems.

Is the issue that Google, as a company, is not addressing user happiness enough? Or is the issue that some organization is letting bugs languish? The first is a much harder problem than the second. You don't need to solve the first to fix the second. I stand by my claim that it is feasible to address the first as an L5, that could reasonably get someone promo'd to 6, and you wouldn't need to involve anyone above a director to do it. Of course, doing so would involve writing very little code, because so much of this is procedural and political, so the engineer who just wants to be rewarded for fixing bugs wouldn't take the initiative to solve this problem. But alas.