Right, and I have further posited that a LARGE swath of play arises in a manner where the GM basically looks at the infinite possible combinations of facts, motives, personalities, and possibly chance, and then picks from it certain outcomes which almost invariably adhere to criteria which support whatever the agenda is, theirs, the players, that espoused by the game, whatever it happens to be. In other words FICTION doesn't really do much to constrain GMs beyond immediate circumstances in a LOT of choices (generally those that involve social factors especially). Now, this is in effect the sort of thing that Story Now BANKS ON, that the GM can frame another scene which follows from the previous one, and respects that agenda, so that things 'snowball', that PC needs are addressed, etc. In cases of other agendas its the same, the GM inserts something which gives a desired result. That could be any of the recognized agendas, and/or something specific to the given GM.To put it another way: interrogating the accountant is, in structural terms, no different from opening the safe. Task: We interrogate the accountant. Intent: We want to know if the dirt is in the safe. If task resolution is used, the characters can successfully interrogate the accountant, and have him sincerely ("truthfully") tell them there is no dirt in the safe, and yet it be the case that the dirt is in the safe, but the accountant just didn't know it (he didn't know about the false back of the safe with the dirt hidden behind it). Or the accountant can sincerely tell them that the dirt is in the safe and yet be wrong, because just this morning it got moved (the enemy being worried that the kidnapping of the accountant might reveal the location of the dirt).
This goes back to the quote from Paul Czege upthread:
My personal inclination is to call the traditional method "scene extrapolation," because the details of the Point A of scenes initiated using the method are typically arrived at primarily by considering the physics of the game world, what has happened prior to the scene, and the unrevealed actions and aspirations of characters that only the GM knows about.
Those unrevealed actions and aspirations - be they the accountant's ignorance of the false back of the safe, or the enemy's machinations in moving the dirt - are not excluded by the 5e social resolution system that you posted. And in fact, in my personal observation of D&D play (based on its rulebooks, its published adventures, and the way that people post about their play of the game) those unrevealed action and aspirations seem to play a fundamental role in whole swathes of D&D play, determining when conflicts and situations are resolved or not.
In fact, I would say this is the primary dynamic of presentation, except in the restricted cases of 'dungeon like' settings similar to classic D&D where it is expected that the environment is close to fully specified in most important dimensions.