The map showing the clustering around the lab is not labelled in the article. It looks like the map from the senate report which used internet search history. I recall that their point in the original report was that there was a cluster of internet searches for flu-like symptoms clustered around the institute, rather than the market.

There is no new direct evidence in the article, simply the weight of existing indirect evidence synthesized together. There does not seem to be another hypothosis for how the virus emerged that has as much indirect evidence pointing towards it?

The main gist of the article is:

* The institute applied for funding for a specific piece of research (inserting a furin cleavage site).

* The institute claims it did not perform the research.

* Covid is what we would expect if somebody did perform that research.

* The research would have been performed at the time and place where covid emerged.

It is not direct evidence, but under a weaker burden of proof (e.g. balance of probabilities) it is fairly convincing.