If the failure case is always progress with a setback then it could work, but failure being nothing happens I don't see being worthwhile.Variable outcomes, generally.
And tbh a small chance of failure just means that experts are more reliable ritualists, rather than everyone being about the same.
And the occultist rogue fits because it fits and because its a skill based concept yhat benefits from lots of proficiencies and some expertise.
So for example, suppose we take a classic occultist ritual about contacting the the dead. There's probably already been a bunch of social/exploration encounters to get everyone and everything needed for the ritual, to then roll a nat 1 and not contact the dead person is going to suck and make the occultist feel useless, especially when another PC could've just cast Speak with Dead with no chance of failure. But on the otherhand if that nat 1 means the contact works but the occultist is immediately possessed and turns hostile, during this possession the occultist has visions/shared memories and so is able to gather the info the party wanted, but they now have a combat encounter to deal with. That could be a fun encounter, and won't make the occultist feel useless since they got the info they wanted.
I could also buy into something like a ritual needs X things, if you get all X it's auto success, but if you are missing one or more then there's a skill check where failure can mean nothing happens. Because at least then it's a choice, do we spend the time/effort to gather the missing pieces of the ritual or do we just roll the dice with what we have. Failure where nothing happens here won't feel like my class/subclass is useless with failure because it was an informed choice and not just luck.