Concentrate on the message, not one word in the title. You'll notice that I wrote a lot of things that do not match the pattern of doing a regular strike in standard dictionary definition.
Bargaining skills are learnable. Only rarely do people utilize their extreme possibilities to get the maximum profit of anything. What I see is that a) bargaining skills, b) will to use them, when put together, may be used to extract a greater profit per unit of work given, up to the point where there are alternatives that are a better deal for the buyer. As cleverly pointed out, information trade is asymmetric - one may know it's good, but the knowledge of that may not be transferrable without revealing the information, and losing the merchandise. I am sure that utilizing NDA's and other legal instruments better, more information could be TRADED instead of being GIVEN AWAY FREE, because of perceived trouble involved in trading. Yet, points a and b would do good in such a hard sale. The methods are there, learnable in almost any crappy book for junior salespersons.
I remember reading from a study where some people just chose to haggle with their salary in their job interview, whereas others did not. Other factors balanced, men chose more often to demand a greater salary than initially offered, and there was some percentage quoted about the average "pay rise", too.
I am unable to provide for guide to bargaining/negotiating in here, but I trust you all to know that such skills exist. Also, bargaining can't be done with non-existing merchandise. It can also be done to a point where the deal suggested is mutually benefitial, even if marginally so - and the best available deal offered for both participants.
It's silly to assume too perferct a competition anyway, with idealized systems. There's a cost to find replacement in many cases. This means that a person who's done better work than he/she should have, as written in the contract, just takes a time to notice the good negotiating position he/she has (involves a,b). This may mean noticing that the person can realistically get a pay rise of 3% only, because there is an equally bright person in the department, who could learn to do same tasks in a month.
It's also unrealistic to use lines of thinking, "if that would make an improvement, it would have already been done". Like any changes couldn't ever be made anywhere.
I'm tired. About the "failed business plan scenario", we would need a new method to prove arbitary pieces of information without giving the solution away. It's possible in strictly mathematical issues with something known as "zero-knowledge proofs", but they are unsuitable to prove arbitary things written in natural language. Rather than making it a proof issue, it would work better as a contract issue. Again, no new methods are needed. Just some guts to negotiate rather than giving away for free. It's nothing more complicated than that the persons supervising you are usually better in negotiations and managerial skills. Learning a bit of those and THEN presenting the ideas helps to get most money out of it.