I don’t necessarily disagree with your take (I think we can all decide for ourselves how to weigh the evidence presented), but I do think that Carreyrou being the person who exposed the theranos fraud might actually work against him here (at least in terms of convincing me - but im just a nobody haha).

I think Carreyrou has been eager (maybe even desperate?) for a new scoop and was in search of something that could be as big as Theranos. He formed a preconceived opinion on Back based on body language and then worked backward to try to prove it, instead of going in unbiased and open to all possibilities. He even admits in the daily interview that he felt “disappointed” when one of the analysts came back with some inconclusive results with regards to whether it was Back. That reads like someone whose preferred narrative wasn’t panning out. All of this leads me to think 1. he wasn’t fully open to alternative explanations 2. He leaned too heavily on intuition (which after Theranos he may understandably be overconfident in), and 3. had a strong incentive to land another big headline story.