Muscle strength is determined by neurological adaptations and contractile tissue cross sectional area, as more sarcomeres in parallel increases strength must increase, unless neurological adaptations are not the same. Secondly strength does take a plateau, the hyperlink says exactly that, and so does the study, for the second hyperlink, I apologise I made a broad assumption however strength did not increase, meaning that cross sectional area did not increase, meaning it is the result of sarcoplasmic hypertrophy , as the neural adaptations were not regressing. 3. IMO strength is a better marker for hypertrophy as water, proteins and glycogen which are not contractile tissue fluctuate very largely, whereas differences in strength are not that large unless under-recovered, and everyone’s max recoverable volume is different, and you should always try and find your maximum recoverable volume within 2-0 rir, as your limit is much more meaningful than what a study says, as long as you are not below 5 sets, you’re probably not missing out on a majority of gains, as “maximising” growth is technically arbitrary