Fatmanonice
On the topic of the Nintendo SNK leak, would that whole copyright thing actually be a point in the favor of a Namco (or Capcom) rep?
IIRC both FP4 and FP5 had pages, FP4's had SNK listed, while FP5 had nobody extra besides who was already in the basegame - so SEGA, Capcom, Namco, Squeenix, and Konami, "the 5". The copyrights for the other 3 had the basegame + that specific 3rd-party only, which didn't transition across packs (so ATLUS isn't listed under Banjo, and Microsoft-Rare isn't listed under Terry; please correct me if I'm wrong about that).
With how both pages were up, and Terry's page listed the copyrights for that pack in advance, maybe FP5 was also technically leaked too, and the only reason it didn't look like it was and went large unnoticed compared to FP4 (understandably) was because FP5 is a character from a company who already has a character in the basegame - so a Nintendo 1st-party from them or a 2nd-party studio like Monolith Soft, or one of "the 5".
Of "the 5", Namco is the only one to not receive a newcomer either in the basegame or as DLC up to this point. Capcom's also a grey area because Ken is an echo, so up to you whether you want to count them. But, assuming that of the copyright "leak" for FP5 (and assuming my knowledge and understanding is correct), I think the case for a Namco rep is furthered strengthened in spite of Verge's debunking claim.