I certainly agree that this is refreshing and a very interesting read.
At the same, because of survivorship fallacy, I think the best way to get insight into what makes stuff tick is to get a balanced mix of both success and failure stories.
Survivorship fallacy is one thing, but I would say overall there is far more value to success stories where a majority of stories are failure ones. Generally speaking it would seem the path to success, varied as it is, is far narrower than the path to failure.
From a failure story you can look at what they did, but if they did X that doesn't mean X leads to failure, as others could do X and succeed. It's possible they succeeded in spite of doing X, but it's usually apparent when that's the case. Maybe X only worked because of a perfect storm of conditions/timing.
I would also say a vast majority of people who fail go on to fail a second time, making their whole reflections write up from the first failure kind of weakened by the fact the lessons they learned from their previous failure were not enough to avoid it the next time. Paying too much attention to what not to do just leads you down a totally different road to failure. Common pitfalls are worth knowing, but it would seem there are 10 ways to fail for every 1 way to succeed. Often big successes do the exact opposite of all the "don't do this" advice.
But that's just my perspective working in games, where creativity and rule breaking is a lot more substantial to the success, I think. However, I feel it all applies to a broader scope of business and software.
At the same, because of survivorship fallacy, I think the best way to get insight into what makes stuff tick is to get a balanced mix of both success and failure stories.