That’s not what the studies suggest. They suggest that it was an important amplification point. Whether or not it originated there is an additional inference. It’s certainly possible, but alternative hypotheses are not dismissed by the market being an amplification point. A busy market is a likely amplification point, regardless of what is being sold.
I think that failure to find the virus in any wet market animal or in the wild (from the studies) starts to become its own kind of weak evidence as well. So two things are true: wet market was a likely amplification point and the lack of corroborating evidence for zoonotic origin is troubling. (Though I think its probably the most likely explanation, I don’t think studies like this actually add any new level of certainty and the same reasons to be suspicious remain.)