The possibility hasn’t been incontrovertibly ruled out (and maybe never can be at this point), and it’s important to do independent investigations and examine the lab’s research, etc. It’s just not considered by most experts to be the most likely possibility.
As a geographical comparison, it would be like having a new disease outbreak where all of the known cases for the first several weeks were in Brooklyn, NY and concluding that the source could have been a lab in Newark, NJ. It’s possible, but not the first place to look.
It does not refer to the WIV as you think, again as per the WHO report.
Which WHO report are you thinking of? The 2021 WHO report called the lab leak possibility “extremely unlikely”. This more recent report from 4 months ago merely calls for more investigation into laboratories in the area and more transparency: https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/scientific-adv...
If you are interested in Covid origins look at this NPR story from March https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/03/03/1083751...
Which refers to this paper in Science, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9348750/
But this isn't necessarily how it works, at all.
The Wuhan market is one of Wuhan's most population-dense areas, in close proximity to three hospitals where the first cases were identified, and was therefore the concentration for infection-tracing.
In other words, the dataset for early cases was based on a belief that the market was where the infection was spreading, rather than the location of a spreading event that came from elsewhere in the city. Even pneumonia cases that were reported were only post-hoc assigned as probably covid if they were in close proximity to the market.