You say no one has even as much as hinted at the proposition that greater numbers of CS courses could translate into a difference in successful outcomes. But that’s the thing about assumptions: they are assumed, not proven, often not even stated. If you didn’t think better outcomes would be produced, whether provable or not, whether stated or not, then what was the point of all that data? That exercise seems to me to speak for itself.
In any event in the balance of your post you give some actual reasons why you think greater hours make a difference. Your reasons seem plausible, especially as a generalization applicable to most who enter that field.
I was arguing only that there could be another model more suited to another type of individual. That type might be in the distinct minority. I gave an instance of the type, a very eminent instance. In my own college days I knew many more of that type if not quite of that ultimate eminence. I was asserting only that the type I described was more likely to be found at Chicago than at the tech schools and that the Chicago model serves that type well. I was arguing only that achievement in science, as in other fields, has more than one pathway.