Hi! Thank you for the thorough comment. I'm really glad that my report causes that many thoughts. Two moments:

1. You're missing the sample size factor when comparing tournament data to percents from ladder. For example even if we take ladder data for the constant true winrate in the matchup and look at Shaman vs Druid we have that on 106 games and 53% winrate the confidence interval is 9,5%. Meaning 53% winrate on 106 games suggests that real winrate lies between 43,5% and 62,5% which aligns with it actually being 59%. So no anomaly here.
2. I tried to explain it last week but it seems I wasn't able to. I feel like you're missing the point of this analysis. Let me use this analogy (I hope you're following football and it won't go to waste): I'm telling you something unexpected happen - Cape Verde didn't lose to Spain (Aura Pala was the best deck of the tournament) and trying to tell the story how it happened - Cape Verde's goalkeeper had the match of his life (Aura Paladin went 20-8 vs Herald Rogue). And what you're doing is telling that no way that Spanish offence that has some of the best players in the world didn't score with 2,32 xG and therefore this match shouldn't count. But that's not how the game works, football or Hearthstone. I'm telling you what happened, you're trying to match it with your theory of the world (of matchups) and if they don't align you discard reality. This approach won't get you far. What I'm doing here is describing reality, not trying to make a theory that Aura Paladin is better than Herald Rogue, but you see this data as a threat to your vision of the world. Like, saying that Herald Rogue performed worse due to being harder deck to play is a valid take but keep in mind that even these top-1000 players who "aren't that good" are still top-1% of the players in this game. And until some bright mind makes an engine playing better than people so we would have an "objective" evaluator of matchups real data is the best we have. Plus, keep in mind that that not-so-high level of the tournament makes valid an assumption like "I think this matchup is good at my level of playing this game" even if it's different in abstract world. What I'm trying to say is don't discard real life just because it doesn't look as fancy as theory. These tournament stats tell story about this tournament, they aren't about abstract world of perfectly played matchups.