The two are not necessarily opposed. It can very well be a lab leak that infected the wet market: a scientist visiting the market, a supplier for lab animals getting the virus out to the market, etc, and the market starting the widespread transmission to the general population.

Whatever the case is, no, this is not circumstantial. If this is indeed a lab break, then action must be taken immediately for anything like it not to happen again. I don't mean "pointing fingers", but triggering a thorough review of all such labs worldwide and up security measures. This must not happen again.

TL;DR if it's a lab leak, it's actionable to us as humans to prevent further occurrences.

As I imagine it can hardly be in the lab because the lab itself is not a good environment for the virus to spread.

However if only one sick transfers it somewhere it spreads in the environment where it is easy to spread - smaller (semi) enclosed space, a lot of people in that space, particular humidity and etc.

E.g. if I got a virus in laboratory and then spread it on the plane carrying 200 passengers, the first outbreak would be on the plane. However we can't say it "originated" on the plane.

Author suggests that the origin of the virus is the laboratory. Nothing said about the first site of outbreak, but every investigation seems to agree that it's the wet market.

There's evidence that it was neither. Blood tests of athletes that competed in the Wuhan Military games in October 2019 point to the virus circulating earlier. The timeline that much of the conversation rests on feels kind of weak.

The furin cleavage site itself pretty much points to a lab leak.