That would defeat the purpose. The point of the carveout is so that we don't accidentally incentivize the airlines to fly a flight that should be canceled for safety reasons, and this would do exactly that.

Perhaps they could require the people who make the go/no-go decision on flight safety to visit a prison every three months and receive a lecture on how this will be their new home if they knowingly approve a plane not safe to fly.

Threatening people does not improve safety, as people will tend to hide the issues instead of exposing them so they're fixed.

You are forgetting what the decision to blanket everything as a safety issue came not from the people who make the go/no-go decision on flight safety.

As a sibling comment says it would be just swept under the rug until planes start to fall.

Indeed. I feel like so many of these arguments that “airlines are making up fake safety or weather cancellation reasons; when’s the last time an airline crashed from a safety or weather reason; they’re over-stating the risks to get out of paying penalties!” seemingly without reflecting on why the second clause is the case.