https://www.axios.com/pro-rata-2446752020.html
One journalist got six sources, three on the record, and claims to have verified parts of the stories (such as reviewing message history on phones), which led him to have the confidence to go to press.
It just seems like an unnecessary risk/vulnerability. Of course, there's also the fact that by going on the record you also encourage others to do the same, which is an immeasurable benefit.
I know it must have been a hard decision to make because you were probably worried about how you & your company would be treated afterwards but this is going to help open so many people's eyes.
Not only does naming sources give more credibility, it also doesn't rely fully on the credibility of journalists. You can only say "it's true, just trust me" without being able to back it up so many times.
Testimony of anonymous sources are useful as corroboration, not as the main evidence. The sources here don't need to fear for their lives, nor are they able to produce documents to back up their claims.
I do not wish to diminish the courage that was needed to go on the record here. In fact, this is even more risky because hard evidence is so hard to come by in cases like this.