I don't know anything about this space; all I know comes from Carreyrou's book. Somewhere towards the middle, one of his sources observes that it's particularly hard to get a good sample from a finger stick --- something about damaged blood cells --- and you can find recent journal articles online suggesting that finger stick samples are inherently a lot less reliable than venous draws.

So, I sort of doubt it.

Not an expert in this field, but it seems like they could have pivoted to do a smaller sub-set of blood tests, like the immunoassays. Part of the failure was their insistence that they were going to do ALL blood tests through a finger stick. Once they had raised tens of millions of dollars based on taking the entire market, it was probably too late to de-scope the vision without losing their investors.

Could they have successfully run tests on smaller sample sizes? Possibly, but the target market size is small (needing less blood isn't particularly advantageous unless you're dealing with children or babies without much blood in the first place).

The finger-prick-testing was always very likely to fail; the biology just doesn't work out in your favor. However, getting finger-pricks working was the entire basis of their strategy, not the "test using less blood" idea.

Not a domain expert, but as I recall most of the things they want to test for aren't present at a sufficient level in the blood stream to get a statistically significant sample from a few drops.

Blood sugar is a relatively high percentage of your blood stream, which is why strip-based glucose monitors work.

I’ve never seen any evidence the underlying tech ever actually worked.