[ETA: Retracted because you actually cite that paper later.]
Quantitative evidence (publications, citations, etc.) could provide a complementary perspective to these case studies. E.g., this paper seems to confirm your conclusion that small teams are conducive to disruptive research:
Teams dominate the production of high-impact science and technology. Analyzing teamwork from more than 50 million papers, patents, and software products, 1954-2014, we demonstrate across this period that larger teams developed recent, popular ideas, while small teams disrupted the system by drawing on older and less prevalent ideas.
[ETA: Retracted because you actually cite that paper later.]
Quantitative evidence (publications, citations, etc.) could provide a complementary perspective to these case studies. E.g., this paper seems to confirm your conclusion that small teams are conducive to disruptive research:
I found this via Fortunato et al. (2018), a review of the quantitative study of science. Another good review is Clauset et al. (2017).