So Scott Creighton is speculating much as Egyptology itself does. They simply assumed ancient people were bumpkins who built tombs during peak growing season with no crop in the ground and invented Egyptology. There are only three primary differences between the speculations. Scott Creighton doesn't have two centuries of et als who agree with him, Scott Creighton's speculation isn't layer after layer of speculation, and most importantly Scott Creighton's hypothesis doesn't paint the builders as superstitious and moribund.
Egyptology has taken positions against science and reason and show no signs of abandoning them. One must wonder if it's because they are so insular or because they're afraid they're wrong, or they're afraid of the pyramid itself. They are unanimous in saying we shouldn't look at the pyramid because there's nothing there. They are in strict agreement that the only thing there is a manifestation of ramps and changeless superstitious bumpkins who needed a nice home for their dead kings dying to get in (and one at a time please).
There is a void there. There is necessarily a chamber but its exact shape and orientation is unknown because it hasn't been seen from multiple perspectives yet. It doesn't matter whether Hawass believes in it or not because there exists evidence which always trumps belief and opinion. It doesn't matter if Lehner looks over his shoulder or not and it doesn't matter if they never summon the courage to study it. There exists a chamber and it's unknown if any passages connect to it or not. This is by definition because of the nature of the means to discover and map this chamber. It can not image small voids like a passage because it lacks sufficient resolution at this specific stage of the technology. It might never be sufficient without infinitely long exposure to see much detail (I'm sure there are many at Giza who wouldn't mind waiting forever to get the results).
I have a few guesses as to what this is for but I'm waiting for a proper perspective of it to venture them or to form an hypothesis. How very very very ironic that the best perspective of the void would be right from the thermal anomaly on the east side 161' south of the NE corner which would not only cast light on the shape and orientation of the anomaly but would also show the passage leading to the Mafdet Lynx right behind the anomaly. It would be able to clearly show this passage because it is so close. Muons would whip right through here showing the first several feet of the passage and proving it connects the path on the outside. I won't mention my favorite speculation as to the function of the new void at this time as I'll have to make major revisions in my theory. Scott Creighton's idea doesn't need a specific shape to plant ancestors but mine does require a specific shape.
People need to start looking right through Egyptological opinion. This is easy enough to do. Every time an Egyptologist says something is "religious" or "magical" just stop listening. These are not explanations, they are evasions. If they were really magically religious they could point to exactly what gave them this idea and there would be consensus. Every time an Egyptologist disputes something said by scientists just stop listening. It doesn't matter why Hawass says there is no void, he is merely wrong.
I like reading speculations about the ancients and their accomplishments because I can get all kinds of new ideas and new perspectives from them. The only speculations I don't care about are those that start out with painting ancient people as stumble footed bumpkins or highly ignorant of their own environment. Scott Creighton's are some of my favorite.