This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the plant functions. It sounds like it makes sense, but is very wrong. (bro-science nonsense like thinking 'flushing' a plant with water reduces mineral content in flower.. absolutely bullshit, lol. Plant doesn't have an excretion system. Existing knowledge was enough, but they even did some lab tests on flower material to prove to the science-deniers that it was not true)
This is similar. Existing knowledge basically makes this hypothesis a total waste of time to test. Sugars produced by photosynthesis are technically more often used locally. But, it freely travels around the vascular tissue and any short-term concentration gradient in one area will go back to equilibrium shortly. It's part of how stuff travels around the vascular tissue.
So, if the products of photosynthesis are ever-present at similar concentrations throughout the vascular tissue, exactly how imprtant is it that light hits near the growth you prefer? It isn't. Apical dominance is behind why resources are allocated to the taller parts of the plant not because that's where the light hits... maybe light is invovled in how apical dominance plays out? that sort of nuance isn't really necessary to answer this question but would be interesting to know.
So, don't remove leaves to allow light through. Light traveling further from the source is signifcantly weaker the further out it is - spreads out quickly. So, you are sacrificing absorbing more light on a closer leaf to get weaker light on a lower leaf. This is not good math.
The size of your canopy is your photsynthesis potential. If you can increase surface area, that's going to increase the amount of energy (sugar is the currency inside the plant for 'energy') produced from photosynthesis. This will impact yield.
I've been intentionally leaving buds covered by leaves for the last 2 years just to show how retarded this bro science is. It doesn't impact the outcome of that bud compared to any other similar bud with similar dominance. It's just as dense and just as heavy in the end. This isn't proof, but if there was some correlation, something would be noticeable. This sort of cause and effect is not whimsical. if it is true, it'll happen each time... and i've yet to see it ever impact anything. This is just something repeated by people ad nauseum and then accepted as true with no evidence to support it.