"More scientific data could swing the balance of evidence to favor one hypothesis over another. Obtaining related viral sequences from animal sources would be the most definitive way of revealing viral origins. For example, a future observation of an intermediate or fully formed polybasic cleavage site in a SARS-CoV-2-like virus from animals would lend even further support to the natural-selection hypotheses."
So far I have only seen innuendo and the weakest sort of circumstantial evidence, but if someone can produce something stronger I'd be willing to consider it.
An additional important point is that there's a middle scenario where a natural virus being studies could have been accidentally mutated and accidentally released. This might be all but impossible to distinguish between origin in the wild.
I'd guess intentional manufacture as very unlikely, but sloppy lab practices as not likely but much more likely than that.
Part of the argument for natural evolution is that there are mutations that most likely occured in a human host as they indicated adaption to an immune response.
My personal theory is that an individual infected with this unknown virus that was going around came into contact with the bat originated coronavirus in Wuhan (which may or may not have originated in the lab). RNA was exchanged and a novel variation emerged that was now both highly contagious and deadly. But I am not an epidemiologist.
I don't think it's very interesting if it was a naturally or artificially selected virus. The more interesting question is was the infected specimen a research subject or not.