I agree with a minimalist approach, but to misquote Einstein: the changes should be as simple as possible but not simpler. The Minimalist amendment to cover data for completeness captures well what we want to achieve, but it also intends to change the meaning of Article 2. implicitly and IMHO leaves too much ambiguity and room for interpretation on the meaning of Article 2 for data specifically.
It gives the feeling of being an ‘unfinished’ change and if I put myself in the shoes of a reader assessing the new definition I have a feeling like ‘you can ask me to read this improved definition, but if you make a change, then please make a real change and not a change that only goes halfway’. In other words the change can also be too minimal to be satisfying.
The approach I would advocate would be minimalist in the sense that it does not interfere in the existing articles (in order not to ‘scare’), but only inserts additional language to tackle the ‘data issue’: an introductory comment to make the general principle clear and/or a dedicated Article to deal with the specificities of data. In my opinion it is acceptable to have both the
additional introduction to set the stage and the new Article, but if it bothers too much for DRY reasons, the Article can also stand on its own as indicatd by @giacomo (by calling it an alternative).