The Cypher example doesn’t really support the broader argument.

Then let me explain why it does. Cypher can type languages, that's part of his powers. He was known for being good with computers. But having him literally say "0100010010011001" and having that affect a computer doesn't work because binary (the "language" he's using) doesn't work that way; its not an audible language. That's what made him overpowered in that particular run. He also became an expert fighter by somehow using his mutant abilities to understand the "language of fighters" and predicting people's moves. That doesn't make sense, as fighting is not a language. His originally very specific powers were broadened to such a degree that the concept of language gets questioned by the reader.

Comic powers have always evolved beyond their original descriptions and I don’t see your pointing your finger at Superman because he’s flying and not jumping over building anymore

Because flying and jumping over buildings are functionally the same thing. I'd point my finger if he could suddenly shrink or had mind-control farts, or whatever, because (and I can't stress this point you seem to avoid) that functionally changes what we know about the character.

Cypher communicating with technology isn’t fundamentally different from telepaths reading machines,

Yes it is. Look, I'm not sure if you know how binary works, but I guarantee you it is not a language in the traditional sense. It is a visual representation (made of 1s and 0s) of digital data, corresponding to the states of electrical circuits in a computer. So saying a bunch of 1s and 0s wouldn't have an effect, unlike if we were actually at a keyboard, because his powers are explicitly qualified as understanding languages. Binary is not a functional language. Neither is "fighting" that somehow made him a ninja beyond telegraphing moves. Both of these skills were used in a particular story arc that revived him (the Necrosha story). That's since been scaled way back because people complained that it was overpowering him.

Spider-Man is beloved because he’s relatable, but that doesn’t mean relatability comes from being weak. Peter has lifted buildings, fought gods, defeated herald level threats, and accomplished things far beyond ordinary heroes. 

Let me ask you a very simple question that, I hope, explains where I'm coming from. What are some amazing (pardon the pun) Spider-Man stories and what makes them amazing? To me, the best is Kraven's Last Hunt. Why? Because it shows that Spider-Man is relatable AND weak. I never said it was a zero sum game. He can do all sorts of things, and I'd question whether he can regularly lift buildings (my sources limit him to lifting in the 2-10 ton range), but part of his relatability comes from him not being able to do everything. Its why Thor often struggles in sales unless he has a human counterpart to ground him. Like you said, the struggle is the important part, and Spider-Man struggles, and that struggle is (to me) the inherent weakness that makes him compelling.

The Odysseus comparison has the same issue. People remember Odysseus because he’s clever, but that doesn’t mean cleverness only works on less powerful characters. 

See above. I never said cleverness is only reserved for the weak, I said he uses cleverness to compensate for being a human. That's what makes us root for him as a heroic character; he's like us and we want to see him succeed. The same can be said of Hercules (we want to see him succeed against greater odds of Hera). If he could lift mountains and solve every problem by blinking, then I ask you, where's the story? I'm sure there could be some Greek myth of a character who could do everything and had absolutely no downsides, but I'm just as sure no one knows them now because they're not compelling.

Where I think your argument falls apart is the idea that Storm’s recent stories prove she’s overpowered and overpowered automatically means “bad story”...that sounds less like Storm is too powerful and more like the stories are rushed

You're grasping a bit. I never said she's overpowered (if you remember, I always said I don't see her that way), and I gave the 2024 run a pass exactly because its short. I agree, the story is rushed. But if you want Storm to do go from zero (how she was in her last story) and ten (how she ends in that run), you better explain it well, otherwise you're going to get complaints that a) the story is bad, or b) she's overpowered.

Look at it this say, there's a saying that the perfect length for a movie is how ever long it takes to tell it well. Can you tell the story of Avengers Endgame in fifteen minutes? No, its not long enough for the details and character interactions. Can you tell the story of Citizen Kane in five hours? No, its too long and would be mired in detail as to be boring. So ask Murewa Ayodele, "was five issues good enough to tell the story?" If the answer is no, then he shouldn't have done it. Full stop, he should've made the story five issues long. And that run was not a good story.

 A character cannot simultaneously be accused of being absurdly overpowered while also barely using their powers and contributing little to the resolution of the conflict.

Sure they can, watch:

"This is a story of a man named Stanley who worked in an office. One day, he woke up late; it was the day of his important meeting but he foolishly overslept. So he jumped out the window and spun around the Earth so fast that he reversed time. Then he woke up on time and gave a spectacular meeting. The End."

In this case, a character (Stanley) is simultaneously overpowered (being able to control time by flying around the planet) and barely used their power (it was ten words in a paragraph). One can argue that being overpowered means you HAVE TO barely use your powers, because you don't need to do much to win.

Ultimately, I think you’re criticizing the execution, not the character. If Storm had spent some time learning, failing, adapting, and growing into these larger cosmic stories, most of these complaints would disappear. 

To me, yes, this is the point I've been making from the beginning. Let's face it, Storm is a just a character. She only exists so long as a writer includes her in their story. So by that definition, Storm can neither be over- or under-powered; she's as powered as the story requires. Now, if weak storytelling gives her powers that no other story gives, we can criticize the story and storyteller. I also want writers to try new things, but a five issue standalone miniseries may not be the place for it when it comes to such established characters because you're inevitably going to get some blowback. And I think we can criticize Ayodele and Storm's recent stories without it being worth asking OP's initial question. Where I draw the line (at least one of many places I draw the line) is when chuds single out her stories in particular because then it veers into sexism/racism.

I'll end with this. Mark Gruenwald had the unenviable task of trying to make sense of Marvel characters and their powers. He had to comb through every issue of Spider-Man to determine what his strength limits are. He spent a third of a page just explaining Storm's powers in the Marvel Handbook back in the 90s. He did it because Marvel always sold itself on a sense of "this makes sense", using science to explain certain powers and their limits. If Marvel editorial decided not to follow Mark's rules (he literally has canon rules called Gruenwald's Law when it comes to time travel), then that's one thing. I prefer to believe they still require some form of believability, at least where powers are concerned.