Some interesting observations when you get inside it.
For some players just a few large events, like Pinburgh, can drive their results. I found one player where over 1/3 of their "vs" is from one Pinburgh. In those situations, you can move way up or down in a hurry - - such players’ positions are unstable. Also, their power rankings can be heavily driven by how well they did in those one or two events, i.e. driven by one or two good or bad weekends. Such players’ power rankings as thus more suspect IMO.
For most players, the weighted-average rank of their versus is not 125.5 (the midpoint of 1-250), but a higher rank, usually between 90 and 100. This is because the higher-ranked players play more, so everyone’s versus stats will tend to skew towards higher ranked values. This is true of both “circuit regulars” and most medium-activity level players. Due to this activity level of the higher ranked players, very few players with lots of data points will have a meaningfully “harder” average versus rank than the rest. “Strength of Schedule” is a non-issue for at least 90% of the Power 100. This held true for both North American and European players.
Some players’ percentages are really slow to move. For instance, Trent has over 3300 data points, so no one event, not even Pinburgh, is going to move his percentage greatly.
For a fairly small fraction of the list, including but not limited to the "down under" ones, a high proportion of their total versus stats come from just a handful of players. In many of those cases, their versus players are not in the top 100 but in the 101-250 zone. Basically, players who don’t travel much and haven’t been to many [or any] large events like Pinburgh or EPC tend to skew towards weaker average opposition as measured by IFPA ranking.