I 100% agree - you've hit the nail on the head. My thoughts here are simply that any results be careful interpreted. As an example, if we're looking at this article, the only fact is Canon is selling more units than anyone else - anything beyond that fact is really speculation. If we're interpreting these results, for example, to say that Canon's EOS R strategy is maintaining Canon's market share advantage, I think that is premature. Don't get me wrong, I really like the R and if I was in the market for a new mirrorless today, I would pick that without a moment of hesitation, but this article doesn't hit R sales specifically, nor does it imply success of any one line.It depends on what you are measuring - for example many of the links you posted were about FF cameras, but they are just a part of the market, and not the biggest ones. While many of us here (and other photo forums) are obsessed with the high-end models (or the ones just below), a lot of sales worldwide are made of a lot of low-end models.
If the numbers are in bodies sold, I think Canon is selling a lot of low-end bodies too, an area where customers may be more sensible to brand recognition, price and availability than spec sheets.
My point is only that articles which say x company sold more units than y doesn't imply x company is outperforming y across the board, and it doesn't suggest b camera is selling better than c camera. The comment on Fuji is relevant as well - they went up 25% likely on instax sales. Selling loads of very low cost niche products maybe doesn't imply the longevity of Fuji success in the ILC market. In the same way, we wouldn't look at fuji's growth and assume that their medium format must be selling tons of units to increase their unit numbers so much. Again, I'm not disputing the facts, only suggesting that we take it all with a grain of salt.