Sorry folks; I don't have my notifications set-up properly yet and it looks like I got behind in a discussion. This is gonna be another long one. >.>
I might actually be able to simplify by not directly responding to some comments/points but by discussing draw power in general and how it may work in the coming format. Draw power is about digging needed resources out of your deck barring a few obscure exceptions (like attacks that do more damage based on your cards in hand). Generally competitive play favors reliability, cards with variable outcomes have been a "thing" for pretty much the entire history of Pokémon and - more relevant - have at times dictated the metagame. Why this matters to the discussion is why N has proven so amazing that it is often a four-of in deck building, while Colress has become a solid one-of (sometimes two-of) in deck building and why I think Professor Birch's Observations is the most likely card to replace N in deck building, at least until the format "properly" adjusts (in which case it may be Professor Birch's Observation or something else - this is all Theorymon with a lot of unknown factors).
I enjoy pen & paper/tabletop RPGs; my preferred system is GURPS and it has two useful terms (that have variants found in most other such RPGs): "success" and "failure" is augmented by the "critical success" and "the critical failure". Besides these general terms, many actions where you roll dice to determine the outcome have even finer, non-named distinctions of success/failure based on what you rolled. The relevance here? I realized that one of the things one must recognize to really understand how things actually are and to better predict how they may turn out in the Pokémon TCG is that sometimes even binary outcomes aren't as simple as "good" versus "bad", even when using a "tails fails" card.
How so? Well take Super Scoop Up; obviously if you lose the game because you need to bounce a card, you lose the game. That is a pretty "critical failure". If you only used it because you were about to use Professor Sycamore and were just going to bounce something with no cards attached to remove two damage counters, probably pretty trivial. Somewhere in between is when you have an Active you know is going to be KOed and bouncing would let you avoid giving up a Prize while your next attacker (possibly using Energy and a Pokémon Tool that was on the first) comes up and keeps things going... but you will have another attacker ready to go after the current one gets KOed, you aren't guaranteed to lose the game because of that KO and you can still make a useful attack before the KO. What seems like a simple, binary outcome of "good or bad" can have some variability based on the exact circumstances. This need for considering more gradient outcomes is quite relevant to draw power. No matter how many cards you draw, if you whiff on what you need it is a failure and if you get what you need it is a success.
"Shuffle and draw six" seems to be the minimum threshold for competitive play, but nothing hits it reliably. Decks focus on playing a lot of cards each turn and while you don't want to miss an Energy drop or your chance to play a Supporter on a given turn, there are a lot of additional plays you don't want to miss but also nothing you can truly max out to avoid whiffing, without penalty. Pokémon and Energy may be at minimal levels, with decks running about 10 of each ("about", not "exactly"). Yeah that means Trainers are disproportionate, but Trainers includes Items (in general), Pokémon Tools, Supporters and Stadiums. I arrived as "draw six" not out of any formula but out of personal experience - I really wanted Shauna to "work" alongside (or instead of) Professor Juniper/Professor Sycamore and N, but it didn't happen.
N is complicated because it has a lot of "good news" and "bad news" moments. It starts out at the needed "shuffle and draw six" but steadily decreases as you take Prizes. It also starts out that way for your opponent, and while some would think means it is pure gain for your opponent when you use it and they draw as/much more than they hand, besides the risk of getting a worse hand disruption changes how people play the game. N takes the incentive away from hand cultivation; it was already diminished by Professor Juniper and Professor Sycamore and the format favoring high utility Basic Pokémon and Items but this takes it to the nth degree (pardon the puns). You generally are only bothered with trying to have a Supporter ready for your next turn or using something up if another factor interferes (Example: using VS Seeker because your opponent is most likely going to Item lock you next turn). N becomes better if you aren't taking Prizes but your opponent is, which usually but not always means when you're losing. The thing is the disruption factor means even if you're winning, it can be worth messing up your own hand so long as it also messes up theirs, even if they draw more than you. The net result ends up being a very unreliable but potent card.
Colress is a bit simpler because there is no disruptive element against your opponent plus it begins the game being pretty bad, possibly drawing zero cards! In most decks, a copy or two is worth it because few decks operate under a minimalist Bench policy while a decent amount will prefer to fill (or come close to filling) the Bench. The amount in between still favors higher numbers; you may not specifically need a four Pokémon Bench but unless your opponent gives you more incentive than just Colress, you aren't likely to restrict yourself to three or less Pokémon in play. Colress offsets its lower draws with fantastically high draws: before Sky Field it was 0 to 10, now it is 0 to 16!
Professor Birch's Observations is actually a bit similar; that average of 5.5 isn't realistic since you can't draw half a card. What is realistic is considering what I've been saying; four cards isn't good but it is still a chance, and it is only a true (or critical) failure when it completely whiffs upon what you need. Since any amount of draw power can fail, we don't dwell on the (usually low) risk of not drawing what is needed off of seven cards. Even though "tails" means "four cards", it isn't necessarily a failure nor a critical failure.
Shauna suffers because while she can't do particularly bad, she also can't do particularly well. Ace Trainer is likely to suffer because being unable to play it at all is part of the text and is likely to include the first few turns of the game. I could see it as the new Colorless, trading the potential of massive draws for a solid draw for you and poor draw amount for them, but that just isn't the same.
