gcc etc. are used to deliver a lot of code that is used in
real word. And without a standard there would've been lot
less interoperability and far more bugs.

Most interoperability delivered by gcc comes from the fact that gcc is widespread, not that the standard is effective. If it was we wouldn't need to port gcc to everything.

You seem to be arguing for K&R as the standard or something
but we already tried that until 1989. A standard was needed
due to the success of C and with indepenedent implementations
that interpreted unwritten things in a different way from K&R.
I doubt Ritchie and co wanted to take an active and central
role (and I am not familiar with the history) but my guess
is only that could've kept the standard simple and readable.