Calling the "evidence" we have from known and reliable insiders a "narrative" is quite rich.
In your attempt to dismiss what we have that you don't (that is, evidence) you characterize it as "a narrative", that is, a story.
When, in fact, that is what you're doing: You're telling a story (that is, a narrative) that all we have is a narrative, when we have more than a narrative, that is, evidence.
You are the one who are creating a story (narrative) based solely on your assumptions of how "PR" works.
Are you an expert in Public Relations, especially in Disney Public Relations, that you know the procedures and policies and history of Disney public relations?
All you have is a theory unhinged from any real evidence or information.