The lab leak may have been in there (you can probably check in the appendix to the report). But to be honest, it's pretty irrelevant. Content analysis is usual

The lab leak may have been in there (you can probably check in the appendix to the report). But to be honest, it's pretty irrelevant. Content analysis is usually performed using the current state of knowledge. It is to be expected that known facts and what is perceived as truth changes after the fact. This does not invalidate the analysis itself. Here's the explanation from the report, which I find pretty reasonable: > Over the course of three months, the working group developed a conceptual framework for classifying some of the videos, based on YouTube’s Community Guidelines. The working group decided to use YouTube’s Community Guidelines to guide the qualitative analysis because it provides a useful taxonomy of problematic video content and also represents a commitment from YouTube as to what sort of content should be included on their platform.