But more than just the leaning item alone, look at the relative stickiness of the front and rear tires. I have found through personal experience that just replacing the rear alone because the front has "plenty of tread left" is a fool's choice if yer gonna be riding twisties...in cold weather...on unfamilar roads...blah biddy blaah....
click here
Although (I think) I understand your assertion, I don't fully comprehend the logic of your statement.
To paraphrase, I think you are saying that as a tire becomes worn it has less traction than when it is new? The only way that this would make sense would be in the case of a dual (or multi) compund tire where the stickier soft compound has worn away to reveal harder rubber underneath. I recollect that this would be possible with some of the dual compound rear tires due to the way they are laid up, but I don't know about the construction of multi-compound fronts.
In the case of a single compound front tire the dry traction should progressively increase as the tire gets worn as there is less tread to squirm around under lateral pressure. That (along with reducing unsprung weight) is why racers used to "shave" tires down to the minimum amount of tread thickness that they would need for a given race. Of course, once you add rain, the reduced water dispersion of the tread will effect traction negatively. That has always been my reason for ditching worn front tires before they are worn to the carcass. Yu never know when it's gonna rain on your next parade...
I also agree wholeheartedly on the premise of maintaining a "better" traction tire in front (vs rear). Just not sure how that relates directly to wear status in the dry.