@Main Topic

It depends what you mean by Balance. I don't care for every job to perform equally well in every comp in every fight. In fact I'd consider that likely a failure of design.

Ideally, the vast majority of jobs should each be able to slot into a slight majority of compositions and multiple compositions should be very near to each other in performance. However, if the difficulty as can be influenced by compositional choice via short-term checks are so insignificant that only long-term checks (e.g. beating enrage) matter, that too is generally going to be a failure of design. No concept of balance should have so little to form parity from.

A better balance is one in which you can pick your leniency on a level of what individual job bring to the table, what their synergies bring, and what the sum of their relevant capacities bring with more choices that feel "good" (or, "competitive") choices than feel "bad" (or, "sub-optimal"), which has more to do with how advantages are presented to players than it does actual parity. It should not mean that all parts are interchangeable. The closer we get to that point, the more noticeable (and negatively perceived) even the tiniest imbalances become because there's no variance in context or experience. If everything feels the same, and we've no agency over the fight except what numbers we throw at it, then gameplay really is at least half just number-crunching and gameplay becomes less and less about reaching success than just how quickly one can reach it. Difficulty comes to exist increasingly in leaderboards alone and inventiveness the result of precise detail in a single fight at a time rather than awareness, instinctive coordination, or general knowledge. That can work for some content, but it shouldn't be the whole of it.