When I had my house built for $335K in 2016, I paid the builders for building my house and the labor involved. They have no right to any of the value I’ve derived from my house by renting it out when we moved or when I sell it for hopefully twice the price. When I paid them for my house, my business with them was done.
Did you have an architect design the house?
If so, who owns the copyright for the design: you or the architect? For example, AIA Document B105TM – 2017 "Standard Short Form of Agreement Between Owner and Architect" says "The Architect shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright".
This means the architect could make a new house which is a copy of your house, or (more importantly) re-use architectural elements in other houses.
If you negotiated that you own the copyright, how much more did you pay the architect? Did the architect still got a royalty-free, non-exclusive, worldwide license to use parts of the plans elsewhere?
Even if you didn't have an architect, you must surely realize that others do hire architects to design their house.
By narrowing the analogy to just the builders and the rental of a single physical structure, your analysis necessarily excludes copyright issues which are much more directly relevant to the current negotiation.
The set caterers aren't negotiating for residuals either.
Further, I don't think they're really against the real numbers being shown so they can more accurately get a sense of what's happening. Keeping numbers a secret here only benefits two groups: networks and streaming services.
Even the music industry is more transparent.