I put in a new mast step when I rebuilt 2648 a few years ago. It did have a gooseneck high stump, but I found that it was flexing too much under kicker loads as it was unsupported and I didn't really want to put in additional tubes to support it. Also, I was aware that the stump was made of a very heavy piece of tube which seemed to not be attached to the floor very well. The mast was also a classic Angel 600 job and the ally sleeve was expanding and causing the laminate to crack (and was also incredibly heavy at the sleeved bit. )
Long story short... I replaced the stump with a shorter 'deck stepped' arrangement, and then extended the mast.
Picture attached of what my stump looked like when I put it in. From memory, I placed a few layers of weave under where the mast was to sit to form a plate to spread the load, and then I tied the stump in to the UD's which were spread across the floor and also the foredeck support bulkheads in all directions. I had also replaced a large proportion of the floor under the foredeck, so when that was off I also reinforced the main bulkhead underneath the stump.
As Phil has mentioned, it's totally worth thinking about the angle of the stump in relation to the rig before you put it in as it's a lot better if it's in line. I got a mast foot machined which fits together really nicely, but it does have it's drawbacks. In hindsight, although I set stump in an angled position, it's not angled far enough back. The mast foot fits so well that it doesn't allow the rig to pivot back and so when you pull the rig tension on, it actually ends up pulling it straight in relation to the stump (which in turn actually has the effect of putting a lot of pre bend into the lower mast) which isn't very flash for powering the rig up. To counteract this, I then have to put a metric sh!t tonne of tension on the lowers to pull the mast straight enough.
I plan to machine a new mast fitting to sit on the stump which is angled in relation to the stump so that there is no bend induced by the stump.