First a quick blurb on nomenclature. "Broken" in mechanics (game) tend to mean overpowered. "Nerfed" always means underpowered.
As for your new rogue:
01-Sneak attack +1d6, trapfinding
02-Evasion, trap sense +1, uncanny dodge
03-Sneak attack +2d6
Compared to 3.5:
01-Sneak Attack +1d6, trapfinding
02-Evasion
03-Sneak Attack +2d6, trap sense +1
Compared to 3.0
01-Sneak Attack +1d6, (trapfinding)
02-Evasion
03-Sneak Attack +2d6, Uncanny Dodge
Now, honestly, which immediately strikes me as the most "broken"? Why, the one that isn't done by someone paid to write games. Your "better" rogue makes multiclassing much easier, before I needed 3 levels for UDodge and Evasion, with your version I only need 2 levels, and hey, I get +1 AC and +1 Reflex saves vs traps just for fun.
If this is the solution that presents itself easily enough, then I hope you don't mind when your players take some easy rogue levels. In 3.0 almost any concept I had could benefit from 3 rogue levels (single-class spellcasters didn't), this just makes it that much easier. Your rogue is starting to resemble the 3.0 ranger, ripe for the picking.
As far as the master of "sensing" traps, rogues are and will always be the masters of that particular skill. However, now they have an equally adept cousin at "reacting" to traps. This is because the primal fury a barbarian wraps himself in has him keyed up to the slightest provocation (or whatever). There is nothing wrong with another class that can "react" as well as rogues to traps, rogues are still the only ones who can A) Locate them and B) Disarm them. Furthermore, despite my last statement, barbarians are not "equally adept" as they have a poor Reflex save and rogues have a good one.
Speaking of "reacting", Monks can react as well as rogues against damaging effects which offer a reflex save. BROKEN? Nah, its cool, why not? In terms of which character could react to danger more quickly (barb or rogue) I would probably say the rogue. 3.5 changed the rules so that this is not necessarily true. In terms of which character could react to danger on either side of him (within 5 ft, usually) I would say barbarian. 3.5 changed the rules so that this is true. Seeing as these mechanics are linked (I've never figured out why) I have no problem with the new changes. Now rogues are harder to cherry-pick (and while they aren't or weren't the 1-level wonder the ranger was, most melee classes could always benefit from a few levels of rogue, especially if you were willing to take it as your first level -skill points galore) and barbarians are master of their domain a little earlier.
As far as "crowning achievement" well really this is silly. How many people out of all the d&ders out there have actually made a rog20+. Many, probably. What difference does it make whether or not they get something ultra special at 20th level? Most people/campaigns begin and end before 20. "Dead" levels still provide hp, bab, skills, greater prot from sneak attacks, saves, and possibly a feat or ability increase. Did you play 2nd edition? Thats a LOT!
I don't treat WotC as gospel, but your rogue is also a far cry from anything heavenly.
Technik