Forget about 'say yes or roll the dice'.
Let's look at the best most ideal possible scenario of player narrative influence in a game. Because if we look at that, we understand why the concept itself is fatally flawed.
Player Narrative-control is counterproductive to the goals of play in D&D (or any regular RPG). In an RPG, it is the GM's job to create the world, making it emulative (that is a fancy way of saying 'to make it feel like a living world with its own internal rules'). The player's goal is Immersion, to get so deep in the world and that sense of it being alive, and simultaneously breathing life into their characters, that they eventually feel the character has a life of its own.
Every time the Player has to abstract from identifying with his character's point of view, it runs counter to the Immersive goal.
If a player can jump out of his character and start to define things about the world, it reinforces that the world is not alive. They see 'past the matrix' and the world becomes more of a fiction. It dissociates them from identification with their character.
So even within the boundaries of what you are arguing, making players part of the process of creating the world is counterproductive to the RPG experience. Fundamentally counterproductive, regardless of how much authority the GM retains.
Let's look at the best possible scenario of narrative control, ok? One where the GM has absolute veto power. Not a point-system where if the player spends a point the GM must obey it, or a Forge game where the player gets to trump the GM every time.
Even in a completely voluntary system, you create an issue with GM-authority, because as soon as narrative control is granted even once, the expectation of Narrative control is created. Then you get players arguing with the GM about why the idea they're pushing this time for changing reality should be 'allowed', and the chief argument will amount to "you let Bob change things, why don't you let me"?
Players will be routinely stepping OUT of the emulative experience, to think instead about what part of reality they could retroactively edit in order to get an advantage in the game. They'll be squabbling with the GM and with each other about what is or isn't 'reasonable', and expressing resentment and accusations of favoritism at each other about whose narrative controls are allowed and which are not.
Why should a GM submit himself to that hassle, and potentially cause all kinds of inter-player problems and resentments at the table, just for some kind of ridiculous ideal of 'player agency'?
What benefit is there, if it only reduces Immersion?
So forget about it. Even in the best of all possible worlds, its effect on the game is far more detrimental than beneficial.
Currently Smoking: Brigham Anniversary Pipe + Image Latakia