And no, there's no magic repository you can invest in that beats the speed with which having a good team who knows the areas they're working in can answer your questions.
I find myself agreeing with @chris_herd so much that I think it would actually be more fun and interesting to play devil's advocate, and try to argue the other side. Not to convince you one side is right or wrong, but I think some interesting lessons exist in between.
Yes, written over verbal is a better fit for remote teams in some cases. But remote teams still prefer verbal to written in a lot of situations because it's quicker. The office and water cooler conversations is quicker for a lot of everyday problems.
@zebulgar Exactly the opposite: they're a no-brainer competitive disadvantage: you'll lose people to your competitors not forcing them into an office everyday, long commutes, time away from family, all for intangible things the founders and investors believe in like energy and culture
They'll just go somewhere else, and you'll struggle to find anyone who'll believe you have to be in the office everyday (esp true if you're talking about software engineers). You'll either cave, or you'll lose.
I've heard this from quite a few founders: energy, culture, etc from being in one place just can't work remotely. In the past there was nothing to use as an argument against it. But the reality now is that you can't convince the people working for you that this is not BS...
Visited a portfolio company that is operating entirely in-person in-office in NYC
The energy was absolutely electric, you could feel the rapid operating pace in the air
Young people thrive and learn in this environment
In-person offices are a no-brainer competitive advantage
i.e., convince them that the energy, culture, and other intangible thing the founders or investors want is worth long commutes, high cost of living in big cities, giving up time with family, etc etc ..