How do I separate COVID-origin evidence from the politics around it?

Those are separate questions. Records can show whether funding went through an outside group to a laboratory, and research documents can describe what an experiment did. Whether that work fits a particular definition of gain-of-function may depend on the definition and details of the experiment. None of those points, by themselves, establishes where the outbreak began.

A lab-related origin and an animal-to-human origin are competing explanations, and the claims in the summary don't settle between them. Claims of deliberate engineering or a cover-up need their own evidence. It helps to label each claim as documented, disputed, or unproven instead of treating the whole chain as one conclusion.

Accountability doesn't have to depend on picking a side about the origin. It is fair to ask whether research oversight was adequate, whether officials described the work accurately, and whether public statements were corrected when needed. Those questions can be examined without claiming a deliberate release or a coordinated cover-up.

Political loyalty can distort how people judge the same official, too. A defense or criticism based mainly on who that person opposed is not evidence about the science.

I'd be cautious with the strongest wording. Saying a virus “almost certainly” escaped from a lab, or calling risky research biological-weapons work, goes well beyond what the summary itself demonstrates. Ask for the specific records and evidence behind each step, and leave room for uncertainty where it remains.