Let $s\text{Ring}$ denote the category of simplicial commutative rings. We endow it with the model structure defined by declaring that fibrations, trivial fibrations and weak equivalences are, respectively, those maps inducing fibrations, trivial fibrations and weak equivalences on underlying simplicial sets.

I'm interested in finding a proof of left properness of $s\text{Ring}$ that does not use the Dold-Kan equivalence. More specifically.

[The proof that I can think of using the fact that every simplicial commutative ring is fibrant (hence, implicitly, the Dold-Kan equivalence) goes this way: let $A\to B$ be a cofibration in $s\text{Ring}$, and $A\to C$ a weak equivalence. The pushout $B\otimes_AC$ (degree-wise tensor product) is equivalent to the derived tensor product, as $B$ is cofibrant as an $A$-module (Corollary on page 6.10, Ch. 2 of Quillen's "Homotopical Algebra"). Now by Thm. 6(b) in loc. cit., we deduce the map $B\to B\otimes_AC$ induces an isomorphism on $\pi_i$ for all $i\ge 0$, and hence is a weak equivalence. QED]

However, the above proof makes secretly (and not so secretly) use of the Dold-Kan equivalence, e.g.. in applying Thm. 6(b) quoted above, or the corollary quoted right before.

I would like to find a proof that, rather, shows that every free morphism is an $h$-cofibration (in the sense that pushout along it preserves weak equivalences). For the definition of free morphisms in simplicial categories, see Goerss' notes on simplicial methods, Def. 4.19 and the discussion around it.

Every cofibration is a retract of a free morphism (and the converse is also true), and $h$-cofibrations are stable under retracts, hence it's enough to show free morphisms are $h$-cofibrations.

Can one reduce to the case the free morphism in question is a generating cofibration, ie. of the form $\mathbf{Z}[\partial\Delta[n]]\to\mathbf{Z}[\Delta[n]]$, $n\ge 0$?

Can one reduce to showing that for every cofibrant simplicial ring $A$, the functor $(\cdot)\otimes_{\mathbf{Z}}A$ preserves weak equivalences?

Is anybody aware of such proof, or of general left properness criteria that might just apply?