In classical (so far as I know) a composer writes down every desired note. A musician is not expected to interpret "ambiguous" chord symbols
But that doesn't mean that the classical musician is a mere musical typist.
They have to know a vast specialized lore about turning the notes into living breathing music.
Conductors can become legendary ill-tempered if you don't know how to do your job. It is a lot of "learn by doing" in all genres.
Surely you don't expect classical musicians will convert to a "new improved scheme"? They might be the least likely genre.
I know it is hopelesa to convince you, but inversions are rarely important in chord naming discussions.
Musicians who communicate in chord names know all about inversions and they expect other musicians to know all about it. Often viewed as a trivial implementation detail. Many combinations of inversions potentially sound good.
If I were to hire a guitarist to record some tracks then my hope is that he knows his job better than I know his job. That makes him valuable if he can read my chord chart and interpret it better than I can tell him how to play it. The session is already going purt sour if he is so far out that I have to start dictating what chord voicings to use. Respectful directions might be like, "Would that sound better lower on the neck?" or whatever.
It would be like hiring a doctor and then telling the doctor what treatment to use. Hopefully the doctor knows his job better than I know the doctor's job.
Here is a cute simple little video about music theory. They never mention inversions. Inversions are irrelevant to the discussion. Tis doubtdul that John Coltrane had to tell the pianist, "Make sure to use third inversion on bar 45."