in-universe, the OP's question is a political question, and most of it hinges on the politics of Aleksandr Kerensky and the SLDF. When you look at his political actions before, during, and after the Amaris Civil War, that's got bearing on his decision making process, and influences his most probable acts, which in turn influences the answer wrt Amanda Cameron.
Stated Intent vs. Actual Outcome needs to be acknowledged if you're going to look at potential outcomes-it's like any other alternate history speculation out there. For over a decade, Kerensky's stated intent was to restore the lawful authority in the Star League and Terran Hegemony. his justification for Exodus was a vacuum of that authority (Lack of viable heirs.)
presenting a viable heir, even one that isn't the best candidate, invalidates the bulk of his actions post-2784 with regards to justifying his call to exodus as being in any way lawful or defensible on a moral, ethical, professional, or political scale.
Given his documented behaviours post-Exodus, the man was at best narcissistic. (Oddly enough explaining his utter failure with Richard) and at worst, sociopathic megalomaniac (though capable of recognizing relative amounts of force. Unstable does not always equate to stupid.)
The point being, Kerensky would never have tolerated a successful discovery of a live Cameron Heir being noticed, not after he had already been turned down by the SL Council for a second Regency and Protectorship. (this is also documented.) Effectively, whether you like it or not, Kerensky chose Exodus when he was refused the power to be effectively the King in all but name.
extrapolating from his behaviours during and after Exodus, a live Amanda Cameron would be dead before dawn as a threat to his power.
Other views might have other interpretations, but those interpretations ignore the phenomena that the simple answer, even when it countermands the rhetoric, is usually the right answer.
