It's pretty simple from where I sit:
If there is a record of Tara Reade's having complained about his treatment while she was in his office, then he has a major problem.
If, contrary to what she has said, there is no such record in the Senate's or National Archive's records, then I think he does not have a major problem.
And if the president's campaign folks keep saying things like "there can't be one rule for Joe Biden and another for everybody else," I think they are going to end up regretting it.
I find the neighbor's saying she remembers being told about it when Tara Reade's never mentioned having told the neighbor is... not evidence against Biden.
I find the brother's remembering sexual harrassment and then later saying, in essence, "oh, yeah, and also that bit about the hand under her skirt," is not evidence against Biden.
Neither of these is evidence to support Biden, either, of course.
I find Tara Reade's having come forward first as one of the women complaining about his creepiness and his putting hands on her back/neck, then coming out with the additional accusation to not be evidence that discredits her at all. The creepiness coefficient about Uncle Joe is something I have complained about for years - in and of itself. And the extra stuff coming out after he gained the nomination is pretty consistent with how some people need to operate.
I don't think that the former staff folks' defense of Joe makes a shred of difference in the believability of Tara Reade's story either. I wish it did, but I know far too many cases in which the aides to the powerful man (whomever it might be) are either ready to cover for him no matter what or have managed, somehow, to have no clue what was going on around them.