I can't read Berman simply from the fact that he pressured Nash. As noted, it's a mistake to put too much weight on that, plus we don't know what went on in chambers.I conjecture that if he was convinced by the NFL's position that this is an arb/there's nothing there, he wouldn't have had to dig too far into the direct evidence line of inquiry. That bespeaks at least a curiosity about how Goodell came to the conclusion he did. Plus, I think Kessler did himself a service by confessing that there was at least a mistaken refusal to cooperate, but I don't know how Berman will react to the finger-pointing at Yee. Even if he doesn't like it, it won't be decisive, and Berman now has a path open to helping them structure an exit - if they want to..
The disparity in time suggests he pretty well knows what TB's case is, but is at least curious about the way the NFL handled this mess. I tilt slightly in favor of issuing a prelim, docketing this on a fuller fact finding. To get there, he needs to find a rationale for disregarding the presumption, which he can get to by determining that in an unusual process like this, where there's a merger of roles, the arbitrator is under a heightened duty of neutrality (not impartiality) and there needs to be fact-finding about that.
I don't think either party wants more fact finding.