I don't know how you can read this article carefully and think it does anything to actually support the lab leak theory. It shoots down as many aspects of the theory as it raises. I would also note that this article leads with with Andersen bringing up the Furin site argument, which is exactly the one I cited earlier where people like David Baltimore initially took it as bioengineering evidence and have since abandoned that position in the face of evidence of wild viruses found with Furin cleavage sites. Also note that for all the ink spent on the Darpa proposal - the bottom line is that the work did not go forward. Also note that while the article opens with Andersen portrayed as having been an early lab leak proponent, by the end he is quoted saying :
"Alarmingly, their spikes are identical and bind with equal efficiency to human ace2 receptors. The discovery “completely blows away many of the main lab-leak arguments about Yunnan being special,” Andersen said. “These types of viruses are much more widespread than we initially realized"
The article also gives you a good reason why the Chinese are stonewalling - either conclusion is bad for Xi - no conclusion is his best outcome. The best way to avoid a conclusion is don't let investigations go forward.
What we can say is that there is a definite 'Wild West" aspect of scientific work in China. Strange as it is to say it given that politically China is a very locked down place, they do not have the kind of scientific bureaucratic controls and oversight we do so they may doing a lot of things that people should be worried about - but that in itself is not direct evidence in this case, and note that the ill-advised gain of research on influenza was done by a US researcher!
So at the end of the day and even this article, lab-leak is just one competing theory and by most lights, not a particularly likely one. As Andersen put it, Possible -Yes. Plausible?