This seems unnecessarily complicated, which I think will attract a lot of extra scrutiny at every financial round (investment and acquisition).
I don't know this, but I'm guessing this structure is meant to achieve "value creation through obfuscation." While this may help you attract talent who can't possibly decode what their equity is worth, I think it will be a constant headwind for investment and acquisition.
Is there some tax cleverness you are trying to achieve here? Why not have one company own 100% of all other companies and have the individual ownership only in the parent company? It would be more common, at least amongst multi-country tech startups.
This proposed structure for a company that does not exist yet feels like a premature optimization. Sophisticated investors are going to notice you probably just messed up your COGS reporting something fierce by slicing off revenue for the parent company and leaving behind whatever unsustainable incentive structure at least one of those sub-companies is going to quickly invent for themselves in order to make their bonuses.
While it may not preclude investment or acquisition, it's going to slow due diligence down a bunch. In my experience, you should not underestimate the value of speed when it comes to financial events - time is generally the enemy.
The silver lining to your structure is, when you finally realize this, the parent company can just kill all the marketing & sales organization with one piece of paper and create new wholly-owned subsidiaries the next day.
If you do go down this type of path, make sure the IP doesn't get licensed to the sales orgs and make sure all your shares are in the parent company... You don't want to be holding the bag as the owner of a sales org that has tax obligations and no product to sell.
My advice though would be to start dead simple (1 company in the market where you are targeting investment and each cofounder/owner outside that market operating as an independent contractor). Slowly build out your legal org in other countries only as it financially makes sense to do so. Every time you file legal paperwork, you create government obligations for yourselves: make sure you already have the resources to meet them (meaning you can pay good lawyers and accountants to deal with it for you).
The exception to the independent contractor approach would be if one of your co-founders needed a work visa... but in that case you should question if they are the right cofounder for that market.