One further comment: considering how long these devices are taking to be publicly available, I am wondering if Microchip are spending time getting the silicon right? Following the PIC32MZ EC series, one would hope they are, a lot of people (including me) lost a lot of confidence what with the awful silicon and a <10% completed software framework.
I don't see it why it should be any different this time around, but how is it a problem? Just don't be so foolish to design the chip into a product right from the first silicon revision. Usually by the third (external, that is) revision the most egregious problems are fixed and the chips are mostly fine. And meanwhile, you have plenty of time to evaluate the chip.
I don't know if you were unlucky enough to have had any direct experience of the PIC32MZ EC, but it was as if Microchip were in denial over it. In no way, for example, can they _ever_ have tried or tested, let alone characterised the ADC on those devices until many months after initial release. Its simultaneous sampling 28MSa/s 12 bit ADC was a key differentiator for this device, a key selling point. As time went on, its specifications eroded further and further. The best they can do is it's now a single S&H 8 bit 66.6kSa/s ADC.
The more recent PIC32MZ EF, though, has been a far better device in terms of bugs, and the ADC actually works. A pity it's still held back by a barely half finished bug ridden software framework though.