I like where you are going as the "Basic Principles" are not contained within the introduction, unfortunately, neither are the definitions, Race flags etc. However, "Contents" list both "Definitions" and "Basic Principles" as part of the rule book, along with the Race Flags and other enabled documents.
Perhaps a re-write of the introduction?
To read...
The Racing Rules of Sailing includes two main sections. The First Definitions, Basic Principles and
Parts 1–7 which contains rules that affect all competitors. The second, the
appendices, provides details of rules, rules that apply to particular
kinds of racing, and rules that affect only a small number of specific
competitors or officials.

I think of the Basic Principles as a vision statement that describes a philosophy.  Whether you accept that philosophy isn't relevant to the rules and whether you agree to follow those rules.

Consider the 'rules that they are expected to follow and enforce' part of the philosophy.  If you include that as a part of the rules you are accepting, could you be held to the enforcement part and thus be required to protest for every rule infringement you are aware of or risk being protested yourself?  What about taking 'an appropriate penalty or action' and how does that jive with protesting and PC decisions?

Accepting the rules is a part of the contract between everyone involved in the sport.  The NoR states what rules will apply at an event.  When a boat enters an event, legally they are entering into a private contract and they agree to use those rules between boats in the event.  RRS 4 extends that contact to include all competitors, owners, and support persons.  This contract is actually quite important when you start to talk about how the acceptance of the rules is viewed from the outside, e.g. courts in determining damages based on right-of-way versus the IRPCAS rules when two racing boats collide or rights related to competitor eligibility.

First, I can think of numerous occasions when a competitor has broken a rule and that was just fine with both parties. The classic "Duck or Pass" hail is a version of this, with one competitor asking for permission to break a rule from the Right of Way boat. There are many others. It might be unwise to remove the capability of the Right of Way boat to grant permission for a rule to be broken.

Second, imagine the difficulty of serving as a jury member trying to determine exactly when a competitor observed another competitor breaking a rule, and thereby becoming obligated to protest. I'm with J. Christman here, I think it becomes too onerous to be required to report every rule violation you believe you have observed.

Finally, there's the related issue of this sort of thing clogging up the Jury with observed rule breaks that could be nothing but harassment. Something along the line of what M. Evans has proposed above might make it more obvious that the entire RRS is a "rule".

To address Ang's original suggestion, the avenue to the Basic Principles is RRS 2, which says "A boat and her owner shall compete in compliance with recognized principles of sportsmanship ...".  There might be other recognized principles of sportsmanship, but surely something that calls itself "Sportsmanship and the Rules" is one of them.  And because RRS 2 is a rule, I think we're covered in RRS 4 and 5 -- the competitor or support person is agreeing to abide by rule 2, and therefore to comply with the Basic Principle.  Admittedly, RRS 2 is hard to enforce because it says, "A boat may be penalized under this rule only if it is clearly established that these principles have been violated," but it's still an avenue to force compliance.