Slim,
If we were writing a journal article, I might agree with you. But we're writing a book, the second volume in a three volume series. That means there won't be analysis in each chapter. Analytical comments appear in key sections. Even then they're limited. Most of our readers are academics who are at least somewhat familiar with Witness and Bible Student history. So we don't feel a great need to make connections that should be otherwise obvious.
We focus on the narrative - the places where the original documents take us. This is an untold story, and because of that what's out there is misleading, false, sometimes purposely so. We address several issues. Russell, though acquainted with them, was not an Adventist. He and the Age to Come movement out of which he came followed a different hermeneutic. Their roots are in traditional millenarianism. We connect Russell's history to the history of the times in which he lived. This is almost never done, and in the few occasions where it has been attempted, the result is, in my opinion, very poor. We add biographical details to the characters in this drama that others have not found or saw as irrelevant. One understands a character from history by knowing something of his life. The theme of Separate Identity is just that. Russellism transitioned from a loosely affiliated group with wide differences in theology to an identifiable religion with a set doctrine.
Much of the analysis made by others is a generalized view of causations, of the roots of millennial thought. Many of these do not stand close scrutiny. We examine the most common of these, presenting our own viewpoint, which we obviously think is the correct one.
You cannot see these things by reading a rough draft chapter or part of a chapter.
The blog is not meant to be analytical. The books is / will be in appropriate places.