The problem with retrospectively explaining success is that you fall prey to both survivorship bias and narrative bias. In physics this is known as anthropic bias.

All post-hoc justifications for the success of any business are dangerous because the gloss over the most important fact: the only reason we're asking the question in the first place is because the thing turned out to be successful.

So what can you conclude from this that is actionable and applicable to you? Absolutely nothing other than the fact that we aren't good at predicting the future, but are good at retroactively fitting the present to the past.