I for one think its hard to bet against either ribavirin (which has already proven critical to SVR when dropped from the regimen - I'm sure you remember that well) or IN. both not only suppress VL, but are felt to participate in reprogramming the immune system to enable a durable response once antiviral therapy is discontinued. none of the direct antivirals do this. so the question is will just ribavirin - a more toxic agent than IN - be able to work its magic (to quote JP) on the immune system just as well without interferon?
besides - interferon lambda is likely to have less SEs than many of the direct antivirals (telaprevir - horrendous rash, polymerase inhibitors - GI tolerance issues), so the impetus to drop traditional INs from regimens because of their toxicity may simply not be there if IN lambda's profile meets expectations. in fact, In lambda may be among the easiest anti-HCV drugs to take - despite the fact it is an injection - when all is said and done.
PS: we'll soon see if pharma agrees with you based on the type (if any) partnership zgen can negotiate for the drug
PPS: I think the biggest threat to interferons was actually negated when the anadys oral TLR drug aimed at boosting endogenous IN failed preclinicals