Nope. Remove leaves at no time allows the plant to 'focus more on buds' .. in fact it's the opposite effect unless the plant has completely ceased vegetative growth. Then you just have fewer leaves when pruned off, lol, and the plant takes in less energy and co2 than before... 2 factors that are very unlikely to be outweighed by some imaginary benefit that's has never been tested or proven with an ounce of good evidence.
The products of photosynthesis are essentially ever-present in the vascular tissue and it is highly mobile, so access to sugar does not dictate growth. Sugar is used more locally than afar in the plant, but that's a dynamic of physics and geometry more than anything. Anywhere growth is advanced a concentration gradient draws more to that locale. Apical dominance dictates where the denser and airy buds are on the plant. Buds getting light really isn't important. Not crowding the canopy, which you have avoided nicely, is all you need to do in this regard. I've purposefully left buds covered by a leaf for numerous grows and yet to see a difference compared to other buds of similar 'stature' for lack of better vocab -- same vertical height, same primary or secondar branch location etc... There is no difference, if it is shielded or not.
Also, light hitting leaves further away from the source of light is also significantly less intense. Just increasing inefficiency as far as portion of photons hitting or missing the plant trying to get the light to hit lower leaves, or worse sex organs that have 1/100th the photosynthetic potential. Green stem is 1/1000th. Tops of leaves are for light. Sex organs are for reproduction. Cell differentiation is an important concept to understand. Different organs have different functions, flower's function is to produce seed, not convert light to sugar. Leaves do that. And again, that sugar produced is highly mobile... going where it needs is not a hinderance to growth. Apical dominance dictates how much gets used where...
The hypothesis behind this is so unlikely that I'd wager no reputable biologist would bother, because it can mostly be ruled out with existing knowledge. Hindering co2 intake or light absorption is not a winning strategy.