There's no shortage of notes to suggest that White House decision makers were aware of these and debated the possibility that including a guarantee of the Emperor's position in the Potsdam Declaration might have made surrender possible, but didn't want Russians as mediators and were more concerned about domestic opinion of demanding anything other than unconditional surrender than actually hastening the surrender. Ultimately these considerations (and others) took precedence over saving lives, and if anything is hindsight bias it's the [plausible] argument that a more stable, peaceful and prosperous Japan was achieved through insisting on total defeat and not involving any Soviet "mediation".
However we did signal flexibility to the Japanese about the Emperor's position; we weren't stupid, we knew that might be part of an acceptable and otherwise "unconditional" surrender.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration
A declaration was made and unconditional surrender requested. The Japanese were warned that they would face complete destruction if they refused. The Japanese refused. It is only at that point that the US dropped the two atomic bombs.
The Government, that is, the ministers including Army and Navy forming their parliamentary Cabinet (NOT a US style Cabinet), rejected it out of hand prior to bombings and the Soviet invasion of the Army's precious Manchuria.
What new evidence? This doesn't even make sense. There were fighting until the last man on every island up to that point. What signs of surrender were there?