I agree with the order of standard defining, but disagree with it being defined outside of discipline.
On a previous job, we had every layer predefined, even if you didn't need it, you had it available in the template. It could be purged out later if you didn't need it.
I know lots of folks lament how blocks are defined, especially concerning layering, but, on my last job, every component of every block was created on the layer it would be on if the block were exploded. Nothing was defined on layer 0. the standard even went as far as to state that the use of layer 0 was prohibited. the reason for this was due to our block management software. Every block was forced to a specific layer to enforce standardization and automation.
I understand the problem of getting to the minutia of standard defining, however, compliance is not only enforceable when that happens, but it also allows for better automation and easier compliance because the designer does not have to make a decision on what to do in *this* situation ... it is already made.
Also, you should understand that standards MUST be open to revision otherwise they become unmanageable as needs change and new developments are incorporated.
One company I worked for had standards defined down to where the centermost point of the model must be located in modelspace and the offset location of dimensions from the item being dimensioned ... however, in that office we were highly automated .. to the point that we could take someone with absolutely no knowledge of AutoCAD or our design standards and teach them how to use our tools to design. Even the most novice person could be an effective designer within a week ... and they didn't need to know anything about the drawing standards.