'Whenever new information becomes available, and that could be any time because there is ongoing studies in different of the world, we can take this again and say 'ok with this new information does our assessment of these entry pathways change?'"

Looks like this is the wise thing to do indeed. Starting now.

Let's start with the lack of consideration of a potential lab escape without lab infection via wastes,
or of an infection in a cave during a sampling trip,
all of which would typically NOT be associated to a sequenced virus and would NOT be linked to an infection at a lab.

Then let's ask how wise it is to trust China to deliver all and correct information if there was a lab accident or leak.

"Trust first, then verify" says Daszak.

If China covered up a leak, how are you going to verify? Maybe ask China to verify it for you?

Last there is the main argument of the WHO mission: that no exact virus match was found in Wuhan labs.

Well, did they look at the private section of the WIB DB that has been offline since Sep 19?

And why would there even be a sequenced virus there anyway if it was (a) a sampling trip accident or (b) a bad waste disposal of contaminated material?

It's even worse. For a sampling trip, there may not even be a sample in store with that virus.

Indeed a field-worker on such a sampling trip could get infected with a virus present in the cave but not yet sampled.

GIven what has been disclosed about the lack of PPE during these sampling trips, the probability of such an accident builds up over the 15,000 samples they did.