Does paralepsis require explicit invocation?

Regarding your question Is it still paralepsis if the phrase "I won't say ..." is implied rather than stated: It's difficult to make such an implication, much less to make it perfectly clear the speaker "means" to not mention the topic that's being mentioned. Certainly, the example given does not successfully make any such implication. The notion that mentioning integrity implies "I won't point out that you don't care about integrity..." seems wrong; indeed, the absence of an explicit "I won't say" is more likely to be taken as meaning "Let me point out...".

In short: I think merely implying "I won't say" in a figure of speech, rather than stating it explicitly in that figure, is not an insuperable barrier to the figure being paralipsis. But the example makes no such implication and I'm not aware of any paralipsis examples that work via implication.

From the definition, it would seem that an explicit invocation of some form is probably needed. It can take many forms - "I needn't mention" or "I have almost forgotten" are probably included, but it would seem that specifying that you are not going to talk about it or discuss it is important.

The example you give is doing something different, It implies "I value reliability, integrity and clients, you value deal counts". It is a conflict of values, which has implications "you don't value integrity as highly", rather then mentioning by not mentioning.

I think, to be proper paralipsis, it would have to be more like "Congratulations on your business success. We won't mention how you got most of your deals", which has the implication of a lack of integrity.