There's a reason they don't.
I failed my PhD first time around, with the external examiner recommending I not even go to the viva stage, saying that the results were obvious and trivial, not worthy of a PhD. He recommended I be given a Masters and not even permitted to re-write or re-submit.
My internal examiner insisted we go to viva, wherein I managed to convince them (unaware of all the above) that the results were surprising, interesting, novel, and worth a PhD.
The problem was that in the first version I explained far too clearly all my thinking, and how I came to the results. As a result, it all seemed obvious and inevitable.
To publish, results need to be novel, surprising, or otherwise "worthy", and if you explain too clearly how you got there, your results can easily be dismissed as "trivial".
Beware of explaining things clearly.
I failed my PhD first time around, with the external examiner recommending I not even go to the viva stage, saying that the results were obvious and trivial, not worthy of a PhD. He recommended I be given a Masters and not even permitted to re-write or re-submit.
My internal examiner insisted we go to viva, wherein I managed to convince them (unaware of all the above) that the results were surprising, interesting, novel, and worth a PhD.
The problem was that in the first version I explained far too clearly all my thinking, and how I came to the results. As a result, it all seemed obvious and inevitable.
To publish, results need to be novel, surprising, or otherwise "worthy", and if you explain too clearly how you got there, your results can easily be dismissed as "trivial".
Beware of explaining things clearly.