Ok, here's one. It's a nice document too:
http://https..pdhonline.com/courses/e321/e321content.pdf
The problem is that terminology is a bit iffy, and the doc makes clear that GFCI and RCD and RCCB are considered synonymous. The detailed schematics and text are clearly what Brits will recognise as an RCD or RCCB. They don't refer to ground.
In the case of solar installs, and the main GF detector in a building, they do refer to one single ground, as an extension of the normal RCD business. Well, they probably should because it's important for a case where monitoring of a ground flow return can detect a fault outside the local subcircuit.
Where the term GFCI really is a synonym for RCD any number can be used, they won't upset a real ground fault detector because they don't have a ground link that might share the leakage current between all such devices, likely compromising the ability of the main one to detect the fault current.
It may well be that solar installs, which can have a thousand volts of DC in an 'upstream' array of panels, makes the single ground link mandatory so nothing compromises it, but a similar thing might make large venues safer because it could reduce the risk of false triggers caused by differences due to insulation leaks in long conductors.
So long as the extra devices are all RCD, truly having no ground link of their own, then all's good, and you get local indication of a fault too which could reduce downtime for a show. If a local RCD trips fast enough, a main GFCI with a ground link might not open the circuit, but in this case it wouldn't have to, which further increases reliable indication of where the fault is, so the more RCD's the better.