Your basic assumption is wrong.
It's obvious a lot of these inconsistencies are due to a lack of clear policies governing behaviour.
The "inconsistencies" are a result of people ignoring very clear existing policies and doing what they want for their own reasons.
You say this yourself :
It's become very apparent over the past few weeks that certain employees of Stack Exchange have not been able to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with community expectations.
The fallout (i.e. mess) is a result of management not enforcing existing policies, in particular on themselves. They do not respect the rules. They (or a small subset of them) are the problem, not the policies which have otherwise worked well until management decided to ignore them.
So with that in mind ...
This suggests there may be other areas where Stack Exchange may benefit from having clearer policies.
We do not need more policies or even clear policies. We have policies and they are being ignored by the people who are supposed to enforce them at the highest level.
More policies would achieve nothing if the enforcement is not fair and impartial.
More policies will create a legalistic atmosphere and I do not see how that benefits anyone, especially when those at the top entrusted to execute those policies ignore them any time they like and do so with impunity.
In particular note :
A moderator dismissal and moderator reinstatement policy, in response to the summary dismissal of a moderator.
There was a perfectly clear policy for this which was ignored.
A talking-to-the-press-policy in response to the defamation of a user in the press.
This does not require a policy, it just requires common sense. A manager who cannot comprehend that public attacks on named individuals in the press is seomthing you dod not ever do is not fit to be a manager.
It's frankly hard to believe the managers involved are not already subject to a "policy" in their contract of employment and the company's own rules for employees. I cannot think of any organization I have ever been employed by or involved with which would not have fired me if I have done such a thing.
SE seem to be operating in a private little world where they see such common sense as no longer applicable to themselves. Bad behavior has no consequences for those high enough up.
The problem is not policies or rules, but the lack of respect for them at the very highest levels.
That is what needs to change.
Is this making SE/SO profitable ?
There's clearly a need for SE/SO to make money. This is also common sense. But SE managers alienating not just some users, but vitally important members like moderators, whose labors they get for free, is ludicrous.
SE won't be profitable with managers who the users do not trust and who have created (and failed or refused to fix honestly) a sense of deep distrust in these individuals who have worked so hard for all of us. Rules and decrees won't change these facts. SE needs managers who treat their key assets (users and moderators) with proper respect.
Going forward with more rules which SE managers ignore for whatever reason they want (and frankly ego looks like the biggest issue here) can only mean that whatever the outcome of the current problems, more problems will occur.
More rules will produce nothing but a complex operating environment for users and moderators which make problems more likely. The bigger the wall you build, the more cracks you see and the more paint you need to cover them up.
More common sense and trust and respect for moderators (from SE management), not more rules.
