This is not break in issues by now; the Al and Cr are settled.
The Cu, Pb and Tn all indiate a wear issue. I've not got a lot of data on this particular engine yet, so I cannot give direct sigma numbers to help, but generally we should expect these number are probably at least "normal" in total deviation. I suspect there is some abnormalities to be excluded from the data, but with numbers like some of these, he might actually be providing data that is actualy doing the skewing of data ... Please understand that we really don't have enough macro data yet on this to find real statistical numbers. So some of this is presumptive at this point.
But what is concerning is that the Cu has stabilized, but at a number much higher than average. The Pb is up, and the Tn has come out of no where.
Something is afoot. I would stick with the current course and let the data develop.
I would also point out that, for such an expensive oil, would we not expect "better" performance? Yes - I'm poking at the PU topic here. But fair is fair; how many times do we hear about how superior PU is? Well - where's the proof in this UOA? How great is this lube doing? I will fully admit we don't have enough data to really make a determination here, but so very often we see folks jump on one UOA and praise a synthetic. The shoe is not on the other foot; this one PU UOA really isn't impressive now, is it? (I am being purposely provacative here to get people to see the folly of praising or punishing a singular UOA). I really don't believe the PU to be at fault, but I'm enjoying the ability to poke at the PU here. Too many people look at one UOA and just fall in love with a synthetic. How lovely is this looking now? If you can love a fluid from one UOA, then in fairness you'd have to swallow this spoonful of disappointment, too.
I'll offer this realistic question as an observation:
is there a reason to believe that the PU is failing here, or it there a mechanical problem that no oil will be able to overcome?
Time will tell.