I have had correspondence with Craig Evans and have his permission to confirm that he has not seen the alleged first-century manuscript of Mark and does not know the identity of the scholar or scholars to whom it has (presumably) been assigned for publication.
I also believe that Dan Wallace had not seen the alleged manuscript at the time he debated Ehrman. I do not know whether he has seen it since then.
There may have been more eyewitnesses to the Secret Gospel of Mark than to 'FCM'.
Based on current evidence I would conclude that, although 'FCM' may exist, we currently have no reason to believe that it exists or will be published in the coming years. Of course, a historical kernel might exist to the stories of 'FCM', but I personally have very limited enthusiasm for source criticism.
I also believe that Dan Wallace had not seen the alleged manuscript at the time he debated Ehrman. I do not know whether he has seen it since then.
There may have been more eyewitnesses to the Secret Gospel of Mark than to 'FCM'.
Based on current evidence I would conclude that, although 'FCM' may exist, we currently have no reason to believe that it exists or will be published in the coming years. Of course, a historical kernel might exist to the stories of 'FCM', but I personally have very limited enthusiasm for source criticism.