A lot of the above assumptions are just to keep things fair since in the real world there are a lot of variables that can't be ignored. For example, keeping AI competence equal between the two companies.

I'm just trying to show that under my assumptions (~2027-28 AI, highly competent) it is quite conceivable that a 4-person visionary company can start a beat a much larger traditional one on quantity, not that it will definitely happen. I guess it's even rougher than the "rough math" I said it is.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is this: startups have always been able to beat big companies in serial execution speeds, but beating them in straight-up parallel work quantity is very unusual, but I think there's a good chance it will happen. This is simply because decision-making scales really poorly in traditional companies by headcount and I think it'll get more and more important relative to implementation work. Hence the focus on quantity of "deliverables" (i really mean medium-size project designs, think equivalent to 5-day targets for a dev team which I assume to be AI's average task horizon before it needs human decision input)

At least, the small team will win for some time until we get straight-up superintelligence that replaces the decision-makers as well. At which point the calculus suddenly flips and the richest company wins by default.