Synchronize A & B in one location. Move A & B apart in a careful manner. Send light pulse from A and record time-stamp on A's clock when pulse sent. When pulse is received at B, record time stamp on B's clock. Return clocks A & B together (in a careful manner) to confirm they are still in sync. Compare time stamp between A's transmission, and B's reception. Who knows, maybe when you bring them together, clocks A and B aren't in sync, due to some twin-paradox thing. Maybe you can't be careful enough.

> Synchronize A & B in one location. Move A & B apart in a careful manner.

Doesn’t matter how careful you are, SR tells us moving clock will become unsynched. The amount of “unsynching” depends on c (see Lorentz factor) so if c is different in forward vs reverse direction, bringing the clocks back will even it out

I also feel like there is a hidden assumption here, that people were interested in the one-way-speed to see if it is Newtonian additive, like it is "c +/- a tiny little bit from the earth's motion around the sun". It seems like with a sufficiently slow separation of the two clocks, you should be able to see if the you get "0.1c" in one orientation, and "1.9c" in the other. Especially since the Lorentz factor is non-linear [ √(1 - (v²/c²)) ]. Right? ???

You seem to be consistently missing the fact that the act of “seeing” is bound by c

Hmm, I don't follow your assertion. For the case under consideration, there is no "seeing" at a distance.

> It seems like with a sufficiently slow separation of the two clocks, you should be able to see if the you get "0.1c" in one orientation, and "1.9c" in the other.

No you wouldn’t be able to “see” it. If your clocks are off you dont know that and by how much until you bring it back and compare. That's Special Relativity