I don't have a problem with the classes being "more balanced" at all.. but striving for "perfect balance" (as I remember from the 4e introductions) should not be the focus of the game design. "Perfect balance" = uniformity.
Technically, yes. For perfect balance everything has to be the same except cosmetically. Like Monoply pieces, where it doesn't actually matter where you're the train rather than the top hat. But since this isn't what anyone is talking about, I think we can ignore it as irrelevant.
It's always going to depend on the GM's approach to some extent. If they never run combat-heavy situations, then the class that shines in combat isn't going to be fun to play. Conversely, a game where outdoor exploration is minimal won't make the classes that are good at that. So there's no universal solution.
What I would suggest is that as well as going down the path of identifying ways for a class to contribute usefully in any situation, the opposite be seriously considered. Make it that
all classes have situations where they often can't contribute in other than a minor way.
For example. make every wizard spell that isn't an At-Will ability into a ritual that takes time and effort to cast. So they can start preparing some big blast that will end a combat, but only if they can stay alive and unhindered for the time it takes to cast it. Or they can use minor magics, which aren't particularly deadly, and keep up a steady contribution to the fight which will nevertheless be less than other characters.