Agree - I think Intel would have a big say in what it wants released under no NDA. It's important to keep in mind - NDA's aren't always meant to prevent the average person from accessing it ever. In fact it'd be most likely primarily used to enable an Intel (or Framework) legal team to have some leverage to go for damages against the most extreme cases of abuse [1].

Also - w.r.t. to right to repair - I've always gotten from their marketing more of a right to repair at the iFixit level (swap SSD, memory, LCD panels, keyboards, etc.) versus de-popping the Intel CPU.

Hopefully Intel's lawyers realise that suing its customers who are buying its products would be a bad idea. If anything, getting Intel to open up more documentation --- like it used to have --- would increase sales and community reputation. Especially with its diminishing performance lead, and the rise of performant but even more horribly proprietary ARM SoCs, opening up seems to make even more sense. Remember that x86 and the PC architecture dominated the computing industry because it was open.

Hopefully may or may not be sufficient for them to bet the farm on.

Knowingly breaching a contract you've already invested many dollars and hours building and understanding, against the advice of your legal council, seems risky.

Exactly.

It's really easy to make speculative quasi-legal decisions when it's not your company.

Additionally - while the legacy bemoth Intel is getting onboard with open source schematics (and figuring out its strategy to open source the VHDL for its 12th gen core to compete against RISC-V - perhaps now that Gelsinger who is more technical than the previous CEO - there is some hope!) -- the question is whether we'd rather see a product like Framework make inroads despite the roadblocks and build up marketshare to further the case toward right to repair.