I agree that in the past questions and statements from the justices during SCOTUS oral arguments have not necessarily been representative of where they actually fell in the delivered ruling.
But this court, over the last few years, has generally worn their positions on their sleeves, as it were, consistently delivering opinions in line with the nature and scope of their arguments during hearings.
I don’t think past courts are a very good baseline for analysis of this current court—it is exceptional in so many ways, but the directness and unity of the supermajority’s ideology (or, really, lack there of at times), is one of the most prominent.
And I think how the justices engaged with the Trump and Smith teams is generally representative of where they fall on the subject… unfortunately for the US.