This is all true, but I'm not sure the claimed implications are so certain. The problem is, different minds can gain different levels of insight out of the same data and tools. 

First, we should assume humanity has enough data to enable the best human minds to reach the highest levels of every capability available to humans very very little real-world feedback. It's not ASI in the full sense, but there has never been a human mind that contained all such abilities at once, let alone with an AI's other default advantages. 

Second, it seems extremely unlikely to me that the available data does not include patterns no human has ever found and understood. All collected data ha[s] yet to be completely correlated and put together in all possible relationships. I don't have a strong sense of the limits of what should be possible with current data. At minimum I expect an ASI to have better pure and applied math tools to apply to any task, and require less data than we do for any given purpose.

Third, with proper tool support, I'm not sure how much physical experimentation and feedback can be substituted with high-quality simulation using software based on known physics, chemistry, and biology. At minimum, this should enable answering a lot of questions that current humanity knows how to answer by formulaic investigation but has never specifically asked or bothered writing down an answer to.

To me this indicates that at the limit of enough compute with better training methods, AI should be able to push at least somewhat beyond the limits of what humans have ever concluded from available data, in every field, before needing to obtain any additional, new data.