Thank you for sharing your point of view!
Your arguments are comprehensive seen from your side but seen form PP I don't think that would be the case…..
This is not Patek Philippe's role to put a defy to other watchmakers or watchmaking companies, or watch brands. Have they done what you propose ("I would have preferred they create a standard and governing body that is open to everyone" and "Anyone who think they can meet it...bring it on") they would have been regarded as highly pretentious. And take into account that the Patek Philippe Seal includes many aspects linked to the history and heritage of Patek Philippe. Why would you want to judge another company's watch considering Patek Philippe's heritage?
Furthermore that's not the role of a competitor to create the rules of a competition (except with the America's Cup perhaps!!). That's IMO the role of bodies that are (at least directly) out of the game: associations of producers, media, Federation Horlogere Suisse,….
So yes to have a "Universal Seal of Excellence" would be a great idea, in theory. Then I know that all major brands in the Federation de la Haute Horlogerie (Patek Philippe is not a member) have had a great deal of difficulty to end up with a common definition of what Haute Horlogerie is. If you want to bring that discussion to the definition of a common acknowledgement of what quality is in all details of watchmaking, good luck!
IMO only an independent media (like a watch magazine) could do such thing, but then how do that interfere with the already difficult relationship between watch brands and watch magazines who live with money from the brands?
You can spend years discussing about rules with others who don't want to play with the same rules, or you can act. That's what Patek Philippe's did!
If that's just the word "seal" that you don't like, but are happy to see the commitments be there, consider that the word "seal" in Geneva Seal may not be so much of a quality warranty. We have all been raised watch addicts in a certain cult of the Geneva Seal as the top reference (and yes to some extent by the fault of PP),but maybe we were wrong to put too much importance on it, or at least to see it as enough to qualify for quality?
Patek Philippe has done with what was existing for decades, trying to get more (COSC + Geneva Seal in 1997). Considering that what was available was not enough they have chosen another new path! It moves us for sure, but it may hopefully move the market too!
Long live those who want to go forward!
Cheers
Dje