The above is a hyperbolic exaggeration, imo.
It's obvious - and has been from day one - that Michael has flaws, makes mistakes, has bad or awkward relationships with some people, has bad reactions to situations which could have gone better. Struggles with her inner darkness and errors in judgment. Struggles to find a balance between Vulcan logic and human emotion. Is working on relating to the rest of the crew better.
But even if it were true that she's the bestest ever in a way that makes her seem larger than life, how does that differ from male protagonists like Kirk, or Spock, or Picard or other lead characters in previous franchises who have done extra-ordinary things because they are...wait for it...extra-ordinary. She is meant to be an exceptional person who stumbled and made a bad decision, then had to work to atone for her mistakes and re-earn the trust of those she ended up working with. We literally see her doing shit which leads to bad consequences because she's not perfect. But she does try to stick to her principles and has over the course of the season managed to find where the line is for herself in terms of Federation ideals and thus, became a mouthpiece for that, when others were faltering. Good for her.
The dreaded MS term always seems to get dragged out, in particular, for female protagonists who display some level of exceptionalism. How are they ANY MORE implausible than the gazillion hyper-competent men with tragic pasts or some other quirk of fate who have previously gotten to be big damn hero lead characters in sci fi or genre films or TV shows?
#Truth #Testify #RightOn