Embraer recently teased a turboprop aircraft with aft-mounted, open rotor engines. Why would this aircraft not use a pusher configuration?

The reasons that are frequently stated as a benefit for a wing-mounted, pull configuration (e.g. avoidance of disturbed flow from the wings, ground clearance, blown lift over the wings, control surface effectiveness, etc.) would not apply here. To the contrary, it seems to me that re-energizing the exhaust/wake of the engine and maybe to some extent the fuselage would have a beneficial effect.

One possible reason could be that Embraer would like to use an existing engine. In that case turning it around would point the exhaust forward and the intake backwards. That, however, also seems to be a solved problem: the MQ-9 uses the Honeywell TPE331-10GD turboprop engine, which is designed for a pull configuration.

Embraer recently teased a turboprop aircraft with aft-mounted, open rotor engines. Why would this aircraft not use a pusher configuration?

The reasons that are frequently stated as a benefit for a wing-mounted, pull configuration (e.g. avoidance of disturbed flow from the wings, blown lift over the wings, control surface effectiveness, etc.) would not apply here. To the contrary, it seems to me that re-energizing the exhaust/wake of the engine and maybe to some extent the fuselage would have a beneficial effect.

One possible reason could be that Embraer would like to use an existing engine. In that case turning it around would point the exhaust forward and the intake backwards. That, however, also seems to be a solved problem: the MQ-9 uses the Honeywell TPE331-10GD turboprop engine, which is designed for a pull configuration. Another might be ground clearance during rotation.