In scientific terms, a "fact" is a confirmed observation, while a "theory" is a confirmed hypothesis = explanation.
So, for examples, fossils and DNA are facts, while evolution and out-of-Africa are theories.
Barring some error in measurements, you don't expect facts to ever change, but theories can and often do change as new facts become known.
In this particular example, the new fact is DNA retrieved from very ancient bone, but everything explaining what it all means is based on theory -- i.e., radiometric dating, evolution, ancient pre-human migrations & interbreeding.
The new facts tend to confirm "out of Africa" theories, while providing possible dates for human-Neanderthal interbreeding.
But if you were hoping to find metaphysical or religious certainty in such science theories, then your expectations were highly unrealistic.
I agree except that “possible dates for human-Neanderthal interbreeding” is theory and not facts. There are conflicting theories as to whether Neanderthal and modern humans were coexistent. More data and DNA information are needed. DNA information could then be examined by statistics to determine if interbreeding actually took place.