This is a motte and bailey. The article is about genetic engineering, not accidental leaks, so the specific lab leak theory in this context would be one where not only the virus, but it's subsequent mutations, were engineered and leaked. The probability of it being genetically engineered first for the leak and then for the subsequent mutations is incredibly unlikely and a soft, qualitative model of synonymous mutations is not up to the standard. Especially since the model takes first sequencing as direct evidence for location of origin (it isn't) and it doesn't take into account the mishmash of explosive spread, reinfection, superinfection, and chronic infection that isn't, to my knowledge, present for any other known virus - a strong quantitative model would be necessary at minimum.
Both the CCP and members of the American government that funded risky gain of function research at Wuhan Institute of Virology indirectly through the EcoHealth Alliance have a strong motive to coverup a lab leak as they would be considered culpable in the pandemic.
The wet market theory wouldn't even be seriously considered if it weren't for the messaging by the CCP early on and people being afraid to be labeled "xenophobic" for blaming the pandemic on the irresponsible poor safety practices that were called out in the article I linked to earlier in this thread.
Given all the evidence and ignoring the official narratives of those with something to hide, the likelihood of an accidental lab leak from WIV is overwhelming in comparison to the wet market theory where it just coincidentally appeared out of thin air in the city of Wuhan with no prior animal reservoir ever found.
