The question should not be about "highly credentialed" people alone, but about how they fare compared to people who are rather very low "credentialed".

In particular, on your list, I expect people with fairly low credentials to fare much worse, especially at identification of the important issues as well as on rational thinking. Those combine multiplicatively, making it exceedingly unlikely - despite the greater numbers of the credential-less masses - that people who lead the work on an important issue would have low credentials.

I expect most highly credentialed people to not be EAs in the first place.

What's EA? Effective altruism? If it's an existential risk, it kills everyone, selfishness suffices just fine.

e.g. many insurance companies went bankrupt after 9/11

Ohh, come on. That is in no way a demonstration that insurance companies in general follow faulty strategies, and especially is not a demonstration that you could do better.

I expect most highly credentialed people to not systematically practice debiasing like some people practice piano.

Indeed.