For me I think its too soon, and I think to a degree Vassal is a different game, the maps heavily favour incorporeal/unimpeded more than average IRL boards (in the UK anyway) which can distort the data if looked at in isolation (but is still a nice and more detailed data set than we're getting anywhere else)
I have stuff I dislike currently but I am always in the camp of not calling stuff broken/op until I'm really sure and I don't believe we can confidently say anything about the new masters from a power level perspective without being heavily influenced by our personal impressions/ meta groups thoughts rather than actual data. I could easily say I think Lady J 2 is broken, but actually she is just hated on alot in the UK right now, does that mean she's actually broken? I don't know so can't say
True but Reva 2 for example has I think 5 games? ( based on the last data I saw it may be more now ) I was 3 of those, and my opponents literally ran at her which is exactly what she wants. None of them knew what would really happen by doing that and I'm very sure if we had replayed the game right then, it could have been a very different result. (I think she's good but mostly has one solid playstyle that if your opponent dances around and doesn't give you a brawl, won't work)
Schtook 2, Brian is probably a fair chunk of those and does well with whatever he uses
I think what I'm saying there in a roundabout way is show me a master that is pushing players above their usual calibre and I think we can start to say broken. Andre winning with Nekima as a data set could show Nekima needing nerfs for example based on her win rate. But if we examine it closer is that Nekima being broken or Andre being a good player warping the data with an otherwise fairly balanced keyword (plucking that example from thin air, not sure if the stats back it up but it shows where I'm coming from)