It seems that if a one-sided Z-test returns a p-value $>1 - \alpha$, you have enough evidence of absence to reject the alternative hypothesis in favor of the null hypothesis, because if you were to swap the null and alternative hypotheses and repeat the test, that p-value would be $1 - $ the original, and hence $<\alpha$. This conclusion may need to be slightly modified for hypothesis tests with asymmetric distributions, but with some transformation should still hold.
In contrast, it is hard to see how a two-sided Z-test such as $H_0: \mu = 0, H_A: \mu \neq 0$ could ever provide any effective evidence of absence, because it compares an infinitesimal slice of the number line to two infinite intervals. As tests return very high p-values, evidence of absence will shrink the infinite intervals to finite intervals still sandwiching the null hypothesis, but the null hypothesis will always remain infinitesimal in comparison to the alternative hypothesis.
Is this conclusion correct? Can extraordinarily high p-values establish a null hypothesis for a one-sided test but not a two-sided test?