Chainsuck is generated by the chainrings primarily. I doubt there’s much the mech can do about that. Happy to be proved wrong, though!
I dunno about proving you wrong but I have a different opinon. My experience with chainsuck and the bike industries response to it is that it is caused by frames. Here is my anecdotal:
1) People, including me have had chainsuck with a brand new drivetrain, in almost any combination..
2) My very high chainstay bullet never ever got chainsuck, I used to transfer all my old drivetrains onto it when they were too worn for my 456
3) Brant responded to 456 chainsuck by designing ragleys and other bikes with narrow chainstay bits to give good clearance. He also advised people to ding their 456 chainstays for more clearance.
4) Other larger bike manufactures who have been in the marketplace longer than Brant and his ilk * have much greater chain clearance since year dot. I give you my 1996 giant xtc which has asymmetric chainstays with massses of clearance on the inside.. (and spec, and trek ect etc)
*(no criticism, I love my on-ones/planetx babies, but lets face it they used us customers as a development/learning platform until they got it nearly right..)
5) I have seen a sram video testing chainsuck (which I wish , wish I could find to show you) which shows the effect of decreasing chainring clearance on the likely hood of chainsuck, where they also had hooked wrecked chaingrings that did not suck with loads of clearance.
6) I am not saying that worn rings do not keep the chain on, but by 9oclock position they will pull off, unless there is a close chainstay which keeps it on. But the sram video and mine and other experience shows that even brand new drivetrain gets it. Brant said it was like herpes, once you get it, it never goes away…
7) In theory I reckon a clutch mech would defo help, stronger return force on the lower chain run will act to pull the chain off the rings…