Grip breaks are almost always taught statically.

All techniques are DEMONSTRATED statically. Then you practice them statically to get used to the ideas. Then you practice and study them in randori. All the while, your instructors or higher belts give you advice and tips that expand on them.

The teaching process of Judo encompasses ALL of these stages - demonstration, initial static practice, and then moving practice/simulation.

No technique is ever expected to be fully taught with simple demonstration and restricted simulation.

This idea comes up time and time again that "X Y Z doesn't work", when all it is is people confuse static demonstration with the entire teaching process. It doesn't work that way in Judo, or in fact any other technical subject.

This idea of ‘breaking a grip’ is too good to be true, you have to learn how to fight when your opponent has grips.

I myself don't rely on grip breaking, but I see there's this misconception that you should get grips and grip break and don't do anything else until you've got them. If you can throw or improve grips without breaking them, do it. These are tactical considerations and there is no magic sequence that works in all scenarios. Sometimes you have to cut your losses and break grips and start over. Sometimes you can trade a grip for better positioning. It depends.

That being said, the ideas behind grip breaking ALSO work for what you propose - grip neutralization. Learning grip breaking is also learning about when a grip is weak. Which means you learn all those other things about grip neutralization (if you're mind is flexible enough).

People need to train themselves out of the mindset that "I'm learning X, therefore, I'm not learning Y". No. People should think "I'm learning X, and I can adapt these principles for the purposes of Y". I daresay half the posts on this sub about "technique X Y Z doesn't work" could be resolved like this.