The question of who betrayed Anne Frank and the inhabitants of the secret annex has always been a mystery. Throughout the years many theories have been presented, and many names have been mentioned, but none could give a satisfactory answer. There was Wim van Maaren, the warehouseman who helped the family with supplies. The only clue against him was the assumption that he was not 'trustworthy'. In her 2002 biography of Otto Frank, Carol Ann Lee accused Tonny Ahlers, a Nazi fanatic and informant. However, her claim was based on an unreliable source that was later debunked. In 2003, researchers Barnouw and Van der Stroom (from the Dutch Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies) examined the then existing theories, and concluded that they didn't stand up to scrutiny. In an 2016 investigative report, the Anne Frank House Knowledge Centre came to the same conclusion, stating that "accepting the assumption of betrayal as a given is still the weakest element of all these theories. Indeed, where there is betrayal, there must be a betrayer. This has resulted in a hunt that has provided a variety of names, but no concrete evidence." The report suggested that the only way forward is to map all the "sufficient facts and circumstances about the entire course of events surrounding the hiding period in the building, so a clearer picture of its many facets emerges."

That is basically what the research team behind the recent publication you mention did. Over the past five years, they gathered all the relevant data they could find, including old and new files. The hope was that a bigger picture would provide new insights. So they made an AI program that could examine all the connections and details. They came up with a list of 30 possible scenarios for the betrayal, which they ruled out one by one.

They didn't find the so-called "smoking gun", but they identified the most probable scenario. Crucial was that they dug up a copy of a note delivered to Otto Frank after the war, informing him that it was the Jewish notary Arnold van den Bergh that gave them up. He was a member of Jewish Council, that received letters from the Jewish community to their hiding relatives, so he was in possession of their address. Due to his work he was also the only person with access to Nazi high-ups. When he and his family faced deportation themselves, Van den Bergh likely informed Julias Dettmann from the Sicherheitsdienst, who made the phone call to send officers to the house. Van den Bergh, the researchers concluded, was the only suspect who had a motive as well as means and the opportunity.

Otto Frank did mention the note to the police, but he told the detective that he didn’t know Van den Bergh, so it was not further investigated. Otto himself, however, did continue to research this scenario. According to the investigators, he probably didn’t want to point to Van den Bergh out of fear for the antisemitic reactions it would cause. He also might have considered the harm this knowledge would do to Van den Bergh’s children. After all, it was the Nazi regime only that was responsible for the deportation and murder of Anne Frank and six million other jews.

In short, the new findings present the most acceptable and probable answer to date. Nevertheless, with the lack of conclusive evidence, its is, and probably will remain, a theory.

EDIT: Just wanted to clear some things up. I cannot answer OP's question about the 'current consensus' on the case. The full research is just published today, and some Dutch historians have already made clear that they have some serious questions about it. So we have to wait for it to be properly peer reviewed to be able to say something about that. I think I should have made more clear that the book aims to give "the most acceptable and probable answer to date". So what I tried to do is to give some overview on previous historiography. What becomes clear is that all the existing theories were either debunked or very flawed, making the new theory likely to be more acceptable. That does not take away that this theory isn't conclusive either. The second part of OP's question, "is this view supported by recent evidence", I can answer: Yes it is, but it is not hard evidence. Therefore the BBC article is wrong to claim that the betrayer has been identified. What the research identified is the most probable scenario.

Unfortunately I found this topic way too late but it really bugs me that people think this is now the most likely theory. Its not, its just another theory without hard evidence, and the extensive attention it got is highly immoral. Fortunately Dutch historians are reacting furiously at the moment, saying there is a real lack of evidence and many unbased claims, but I fear the damage is already done.

Back to the content. The researchers claim they used a lot of data, ai, and other tech but the whole theory is based on one anonymous note. The content of the note (which is a copy of the original one) was already known to researchers. All other things you hear are largely assumptions and many dont seem to be very historically accurate.

First you have to know that in post-war Netherlands there was a lot of gossip and rumours about who betrayed who. The Jewish Council, established to manage the Jewish community (in reality simply a useful tool to the Germans to pass their orders) was often blamed. And often without proof (but understandable hard feelings against the members of the council). In that context this anonymous note seems to have appeared, no proof, just a name.

Second, the notary was member of the Jewish council, but there is no evidence they had any knowledge about where Jews were hiding. Let alone that they could betray them to save themselves. This assumption is based on one claim of a German translator who said during his trial he overheard it at the SD HQs in Amsterdam. There are no further claims or evidence. So claiming the Jewish council had some active trade in addresses is really not based on evidence.

Even if the council had these names it was abolished in 1943. How likely is it that this notary hold on to all these addresses for another year. And already months before the raid he got into trouble with the Germans but supposedly still hold on to the addresses? Its not very likely.

Third, this whole case is based on one copy of an anonymous note and various (unproven) assumptions. Im not saying this man didnt do it but you need a whole lot more to claim that this is the most acceptabele and probable answer to date.

Dutch historians have already reacted furiously regarding the extensive claims and attention this report is getting. See: https://www.trouw.nl/binnenland/deze-gaten-schieten-historici-in-de-anne-frank-onthulling~b3532308/

This report is highly immoral and based on hot air. Im also very frustrated that someone just repeating the researchers claims without actual historical facts, very easy to find since historians are reacting massively at the moment (see for example above article) is getting this many upvotes. Just like the research, it is getting way too much attention, and I really find it disgusting how this is being received by media.