I think this may have been fixed. When I click on the playground link, I do see an error as described in the Expected Result.

Looking a little deeper, it looks like the test case in the issue is checked because in a scenario like

declare const f: (...args: Array<() => void>);
declare argsList: Array<() => Promise<void>>;
f(...argsList)

the rule will ask "what is the type of ...args" and the response is () => Promise<void>. See

So, the test cases

function consume(..._callbacks: Array<() => void>): void { }
// array
let cbs = [() => Promise.resolve(true), () => Promise.resolve(true)];
consume(...cbs)

and

function consume(..._callbacks: Array<() => void>): void { }
// tuple
const cbs = [() => Promise.resolve(true), () => Promise.resolve(true)] as const;
consume(...cbs)

pass just fine.

This does reveal though, the rule isn't too careful about checking unions of call signatures, so something like the following will fail to report, though it would be possible to detect.

function consume(...maybeCallbacks: Array<(() => void) | number>): void { }
const cbs = [() => Promise.resolve(true), 3] as const;
consume(...cbs)

That's not isolated to spread arguments; we can just as easily trick the rule with

function consume(...maybeCallbacks: Array<(() => void) | number>): void { }
declare const cb: (() => Promise<boolean>) | 3
consume(cb)

However, the use of spread args might be a more compelling case to address it than on its own.

Furthermore, while the example in the issue does pass, there is no test case at present to ensure that it passes.

So, I'd see as actionable

1. Add test case from issue
2. Address unions of potentially misused promises (might be better to file a new issue for that, rather than include it in this one)
3. Remove comments in code that refer to this issue and spread elements being unsupported

   typescript-eslint/packages/eslint-plugin/src/rules/no-misused-promises.ts

   Lines 552 to 553 in 0ca3a11

   	// Note - we currently do not support 'spread' arguments - adding support for them
   	// is tracked in https://github.com/typescript-eslint/typescript-eslint/issues/5744

Would maintainers agree with these actions?

Yup, thanks for the deep dive @kirkwaiblinger! All sounds good to me. 🚀