If you're looking for the best possible quality, it's always best to work in teams of three. Interpreters tell us that interpreting into a second language rarely provides the same quality.
You say that there should be teams of three when it comes to remote interpreting. You define this by saying that the majority of participants testify or speak remotely. But the European Commission, for example, says that it only takes one person taking part remotely for it to be considered remote interpretation.
Shouldn't remote interpretation be defined in the same way? Rather than a majority of remote stakeholders, a single remote person would be enough to define remote interpretation.