If I read the article correctly, this doesn't quite rise to the level that I outlined in the post you are responding to; they haven't actually identified an anc

If I read the article correctly, this doesn't quite rise to the level that I outlined in the post you are responding to; they haven't actually identified an ancestral form of the virus that exists in a wild population (thus relying on statistical methods to make inferences about its evolutionary history, whose reliability I think is a little suspect), and even if we assume that all conclusions they draw are in fact correct it does not rule out something like the original poster's multi-hop human-animal-human-animal provenance, starting in a lab leak.