Based on the drawings I've seen, this isn't the case. The station would look very much like Alewife, with the stairs and elevators at the end of a center platform. I'm not sure if they're still looking at tailing tracks or not, but I haven't seen any suggestion for access at the end of the tracks like they built at Union Square.
EDIT: I see that the "Alternative 1" graphic does block it. Let's hope that's not the alternative they go with.
The "Alternative 1" is the recommended alternative in the 2021 concept design, which also mentions removing the diverging tail tracks and having all tracks end at the platform. The 2010 study showed diverging tracks.
The figures below are all taken directly from the 2021 conceptual design. In the "Station Alternatives" section (6.1), the 2010 alternative shows tail tracks, but Alternative 1 does not:
However, in the next section, "Tunneling Alternatives" (6.2), both the 2010 alternative and all newer alternatives show tail tracks. The C&C alternative, which ends up being the recommended alternative, explicitly notes that tail tracks with be constructed using C&C.
Strange enough, Figure 9-3 shows both "potential" tail tracks
and blocking elevators and stairs. While the elevators to the north look like they barely manage to avoid the tail track, the stairs and other rooms to the south seem to be interfering with the tail track:
Regarding storage tracks specifically, the conclusion seems to be that the exact location of storage tracks (west of Charles, east of Charles, or Bowdoin) requires further analysis in the next phase, but the phrasing seems to prefer storage tracks to the east. The cost estimates currently use the diverging tail tracks.
Someone in the Reddit thread mentioned they were at the Monday meeting and the slides showed alternatives with tail tracks. It's not clear if they were showing the 2010 alternative or the C&C diagram above.
I can't attend the Thursday meeting, so it would be good if someone who plans to attend can ask them to clarify this.