Salamun Alaikum.
I would also consider admitting 'Abu Lahab' (111.1) as a real name. Furthermore, there is absolutely no proof that the name 'Zaid' in 33:37 is not a real name. If it were a description of the type "Tom Dick & Harry", then we would have expected this name to be continued to be understood in this way in some form. There needs to be some documented evidence to corroborate the assertion. In its absence, the Quran is to be read literally especially since the name 'Zaid' has been continued to be used as a proper name.
Furthermore, to understand 'Zaid' as 'Tom, Dick & Harry' would be nonsensical given the discussion narrative of 33:37.
I personally consider the naming of 'Zaid' a blessing in the Quran. It can potentially bring down the theological support for Shi'ism in one stroke.
If we accept 'Zaid' as a proper name (as most Shi'a do), then the question is, if belief in Imammat (as the Shi'a understand) is so fundamentally important for Shi'ism theology to survive, then why is it that an adopted son of the Prophet was worthy of mention in the Quran, yet the most important progenitor of the 12 rightly guided Imams (Ali) was not mentioned even once in the Quran!?
Something to think about.
Regards,
Joseph