This would essentially be the first proven manuscript we have of any NT text, from less than 50 years since Mark wrote his eyewitness account. Unfortunately, we won't know much more about these 7 manuscripts until "sometime next year".
What's more interesting, however, is Dan Wallace's statement, which I quote here:
Essentially, this destroys anyone who ignorantly states that the NT has "been significantly corrupted over time" - our earliest evidence (going back to less than 50 years since their writing) shows that very little changed in the text of the NT in the first four centuries CE, and even if it did, we have other manuscripts that show us the original wording (copies from older manuscripts that unfortunately are no longer extant).How do these manuscripts change what we believe the original New Testament to say? We will have to wait until they are published next year, but for now we can most likely say this: As with all the previously published New Testament papyri (127 of them, published in the last 116 years), not a single new reading has commended itself as authentic... (i)n other words, the papyri have confirmed various readings as authentic in the past 116 years, but have not introduced new authentic readings. The original New Testament text is found somewhere in the manuscripts that have been known for quite some time.
Compare this to most of the manuscripts we have of Tanakh writings (the oldest copy of Isaiah for instance - the Great Isaiah Scroll - is from 200 CE, over 500 years since Isaiah initially penned his prophecies), then the NT is textually more reliable than the entire Tanakh