I’m not at all convinced by what Phil tweeted there. He spoke of honouring ‘existing‘ agreements. All good. Then he spoke of their ‘desire’ to keep Call of Duty on PlayStation. Nice sentiment but there’s nothing legally binding there. No doubt Microsoft’s lawyers will be watching everything he says. The name of the game right now is to appear to being as reasonable as possible until the deal’s finalised.
It's purposefully vague and can therefore be interpreted in various ways. Honour agreements was always a given, same as Bethesda, Deathloop and Ghostwrite Tokyo being timed exclusives etc. PS always have COD marketing deals and may have a timed block ongoing agreement of 3yrs marketing for example in which case they'd be referring to such agreements by default meaning the game would have to be on PS.
As for Phil's desire to have COD on PS...well Warzone is still COD, and it's a given it will remain, but we all know his desire is to have GP on PlayStation, and COD would be in GP, so could be interpreted that way too. At the end of the day they don't own Activision yet so can't make sweeping bold statements either way.