@n_di I think your link is very relevant to this discussion in particular having separate test teams or being embedded in development teams.
The report flagged a few amber flags for me initially, its a side topic but as soon as it mentioned the term manual it made me think it was targeting very older scripted testing focused practices that tends to favour separate QA teams, however the demographic turned out to be smaller companies and not enterprise level which made it more interesting for me and perhaps its just the language used that was the risk there.
The more interesting element was the target audience of reports, again it seemed to go more towards the older practices of separate test groups and potentially an over focus on providing evidence of testing maybe even at the cost of doing good actual testing.
Development teams only garnering 2.5 percent if the target audience of reports, a massive red flag for waste. One of the main differences in moving to reporting to development is the team themselves are the primary value of your testing information, often that will be verbal communication and moving as part of development groups ideally changes that to 90+ percent.
Of course you will need to keep other stakeholders involved so being part of the team does not negate this but it reduces that focus significantly alongside the waste that goes with it.
A very good consideration point when comparing the two models and also one of the reasons I feel a more efficient more modern approach is the whole team model. In certain contexts though the other older model does remain valuable.