Just adding two .02 for a .04 total
1. PhaseOne did a great job in MF, I have been using their backs and cameras back in the day (P45+, P65+), but IMHO everything they did was just evolutionary, never conceptually revolutionary or innovative. Conceptually, all they did was taking the old MF camera concept and replacing film with a sensor. Everything else remained the same, and still is the same now. Hasselblad did the exact same thing with their H line. Also IMHO, Phase did so with better results than Hassy, but conceptually I don't see any invention or innovation with neither of them there - just repeating the old MF film concept concept and improving as technology improved, that's it.
On the other hand, Hasselblad with the X1D and Fuji with the GFX applied some invention and innovation to the MF concept. Again, results are a different business - I am talking concept and innovation here - and arguably conceptually the X1D was a game changer as far as applying the advantages of digital to MF and making into a truly small, light and portable MF system, the Fuji got close but slightly less so: system is still bulky, all the GFX cameras have lots of bits and pieces, I'd say that GFX cameras never went "all-in" and are in-between-old-MF-and-X1D-modular-contraptions, etc.
2. EFV vs OVF, IMHO, depends only on your application. As I wrote in my X1D review, and in many articles before that (i.e. SL review) I believe that for landscape photography the EVF is THE most important change since the advent of digital, with so many advantages over a OVF that it's not even funny. Of course, other applications will end up in a completely different evaluation of the benefits of the one vs the other, but arguing that an OVF, as good as it might be, is "A new perspective" is probably a worse fix than the original.
Best regards,
Vieri