Nope, they don't. I have addressed the quotes you brought up in a previous post (
this) and pointed out that there are ways to interpret them to fit with what Afrasiabi just said recently, but in case you missed it, I will post those interpretations again (keep in mind that it's just *interpretation*, I'm not claiming that they must be fact).
Firstly, the Forsaken Intro cutscene:
The facts we get from this:
- The Forsaken were betrayed by Putress at the Wrathgate.
- Sylvanas didn't know or expect Putress and Varithmaras to have taken over Undercity.
- The Forsaken were wrongfully blamed for those traitors (Putress and Varithmaras)' atrocity.
However, none of those explicitly stated, without any other possible interpretation, that Sylvanas wasn't behind the Wrathgate incident in any manner. For a simple example, Sylvanas could have ordered Putress to carry out the Wrathgate incident, and then betrayed by Varithmaras who made use of the situation to carry out his own plan. In that case, all of those three facts mentioned above would still fit: Putress still betray Sylvanas and the Forsaken at the Wrathgate; Sylvanas still didn't know about the traitors' plan to seriously attack her and took over Undercity until it was too late; And the Forsaken were wrongfully blamed for the traitors' atrocity, as that was never the Forsaken's plan, just Sylvanas' and later, Varithmaras & Putress'. See? All fit, just with extra bit of information that Sylvanas was involved in the Wrathgate's incident.
You can use the same interpretation to explain Chronicle 3 away - i's actually easier because there isn't any need to interpret it in a special way for the Forsaken to be uninvolved (as that simply wasn't mentioned). The only truths in Sylvanas' account of Undercity's rebellion were just Putress had attempted to overthrow her, and Varithmaras carried out his plan to claim the Forsaken for the Legion. The fact that it didn't mention Sylvanas's involvement in those truths, while bringing up that "
Whether she was aware that Putress and Varithmaras were planning to use the concoction remained a mystery" put some doubts in the matter. Normally, it wouldn't be enough to fairly suspect Sylvanas, but now we get Afrasiabi's statement - assuming he didn't misspoke, that is.
Again, I'm not saying that the interpretation I brought up must have been truth. It's very possible that Afrasiabi just misspoke and turned it into a retcon, but my point is that it isn't necessarily so. It can be fully explained within the scope of current lore. I'd love to see any official sources stating that Sylvanas had no involvement whatsoever to the Wrathgate's incident without any other possible explanation because, well, I can't recall any (although I could have simply missed that).