To what extent should the dialogues in the Pāli Suttas be treated as literal historical events?

In academic discussions of early Buddhism, the Pāli Nikāyas are often regarded as the oldest extant records of the Buddha’s teachings. Studying the Pāli Canon, one often encounters detailed dialogues between the Buddha and various individuals (e.g., monks, brahmins, kings, and wanderers). These exchanges are frequently presented with specific narrative settings, named interlocutors, and structured philosophical arguments. The key question is how scholars and informed practitioners evaluate their historical reliability: To what extent can these dialogues be read as records of real conversations, and to what extent should they be read as later literary compositions shaped for doctrinal clarity or pedagogical purposes? Take for instance, how in certain suttas, the Buddha is depicted engaging in dialogue with various Brahmins identified with well-known Vedic lineages or names such as Vāseṭṭha (cf. Vasistha), Bhāradvāja (cf. Bharadvaja), and Assalāyana (cf. Asvalayana). These figures are significant because their names correspond to ancient ṛṣi lineages that, within the Brahmanical tradition itself, are often placed many centuries if not millennia prior to the historical Buddha. This raises a historical-critical problem: Are the individuals named in these suttas intended to be the same as the ancient Vedic sages, or are these names better understood as referring to later Brahmins belonging to those gotras (lineages) rather than the original figures themselves? if these names refer to the same figures as those of the Vedic tradition, then the dialogues appear chronologically implausible. On the other hand, if they refer to later Brahmins bearing inherited lineage names (gotras), then the issue may be resolved differently. Broadly, How do scholars in Buddhist Studies assess the historical reliability of narrative exchanges in the Pāli Suttas, especially when they involve figures whose identities may be symbolic, anachronistic, or traditionally mythologized?