Maybe announcing the PS5 Indy port so soon is just a legal precaution.
The most recent annual report from MS said this about risks related to acquisitions: "In addition, an acquisition may be subject to challenge even after it has been completed. For example, the Federal Trade Commission continues to challenge our Activision Blizzard acquisition and could, if successful, alter or unwind the transaction. These events could adversely affect our business, operations, financial condition, and results of operations."
One of the main arguments from the FTC was exclusivity and the Indiana Jones game going from multi platform (originally) to exclusive due to a new agreement with Disney (renegotiated by MS post Bethesda acquisition) was one of the best pieces of evidence that they got.
The FTC altering or even unwinding the ABK acquisition is unlikely but in theory is still possible.
We are in August 2024 and this is still going on (we are waiting for the decision from the 9th Circuit). So, maybe announcing that Indiana Jones is not exclusive, even before the release of the Xbox version, is just a legal precaution in case the 9th Circuit rules in favour of the FTC and then the administrative process goes ahead.
This way that piece of evidence wouldn't be valuable anymore and MS could say: "The game is multi platform again, there is a small gap of 3-4 months between versions but just for technical reasons. We don't even care about temporal exclusivity because PS5 players already know that the game is coming and when".
After all, we lawyers love to anticipate any potential risk, no matter how small it may seem. I think that the risk is minor but if it becomes a reality (altering or even unwinding ABK) would have huge consequences.
Therefore, better be safe than sorry.
=========
This is a reasonable explanation, not really seen any better ones yet, as to why they announced the port before even Xbox's release, I forgot the Ninth Circuit is still pending and it definitely should have been closed months ago so I'm not sure what is holding it up and Microsoft lawyers are very cautious people. Microsoft mentioning it in their annual report shows they still have some concern. Ultimately, it won't matter much, I don't think Indiana Jones would have been a system seller, but it was still a dumb move that causes unnecessary negative PR and not any benefits that I can think of. Idas explanation does at least provide a solid theory.
