Critical flaws in SGX are being found all the time. It's a failed experiment that someone put into commercial products. At the same time there are no examples of SGX-like architecture that actually do work.
Enclaves are started from host code, but host code can't see into them. In other words you have no way of telling whether the enclave you've started is what you wanted, or if it includes malware.
The scheme I've described does give integrity - after all, that's precisely how the actual trusted components work, SecureEnclave, TEE etc: you have a trusted hypervisor, and then run your secure components outside the untrusted OS, in a trusted environment in that trusted hypervisor. It gives you everything SGX could, without its fundamental design problems.
Enclaves are started from host code, but host code can't see into them. In other words you have no way of telling whether the enclave you've started is what you wanted, or if it includes malware.
The scheme I've described does give integrity - after all, that's precisely how the actual trusted components work, SecureEnclave, TEE etc: you have a trusted hypervisor, and then run your secure components outside the untrusted OS, in a trusted environment in that trusted hypervisor. It gives you everything SGX could, without its fundamental design problems.