Thanks for commenting. The statistical probabilities are indeed difficult to grasp. I need to read the judges' reports in full to fully understand them.

It's also true that the precise animal source of Covid-19 has not been identified, but so is Ebola, HIV, and even the initial SARS-1. The best we can do is piece together evidence to identify the most likely animal source. For Covid-19, that seems to be a raccoon dog in a cage sold at the market shop with positive SARS-CoV-2 environmental samples.

The information of sick WIV scientists is actually unreliable information, which subsequent efforts failed to verify. This was discussed in session I of the debate. Alternatively, you can see Peter's slides 185-197 from session I here. I also added slides 192 and 193 in the Appendix of this article.

Although the virus started in Wuhan where there's a lab, there are also labs that do coronavirus gain-of-function elsewhere, including in the U.S. The virus also started in Wuhan where there's a market that sells wild animals, which scientists have deemed risky of instigating outbreaks for years prior. Safety protocols were also inadequate in this market.