I like the curation effort, but I wonder about some of the articles curated if the amount is too high? It's difficult to pin down as my tastes are different from others.

This is the benefit of the revolving curators. Each week there will be a different set of tastes being explored.

I'll also add, the @vyb.check process is very much in the early stages right now, so we don't have a dedicated on-chain process showing how the merit-based 100% vote from vyb.pob is being applied, although we are drafting the process off-chain at the moment to work out some kinks (also we're building up the habitual process that will be required for genuine input).

"Over-rewarding" feels like an old mentality from my point of view. What if it is viewed as over-distributing? Once the tokens are then paid out it makes more sense to look at how the tokens are held, sold, or transferred.

Surely the "over-rewarding" elements are only a huge concern when tokens are then dumped on the market creating market instability? Or if the tokens are concentrated to a specific account to generate a much larger staked account, which would then start to limit crowd wisdom in various ways?

With this being said, my philosophies and opinion about "Proof of Brain" (the concept) have definitely changed over the past month or so. I'm sure they'll change and evolve as time goes on too.

I do like the consistency of the curation efforts though. I also like that those curating do recognize the low value of some articles by skipping them.

Same here, it's still very very early days too. We have only had the curators active for 3-4 days. Once that first curation data post is up we'll start to see the cause and effect relationship for public accountability (something that is flaunted here on the blockchain, but rarely used as a sustainable method of self-regulation, think 24-hour news window, brush it under the rug).