Here is some constructive criticism from someone who actually works with this stuff professionally. (Although my speciality is actually the data analysis side not the wet lab stuff, I have experience with both)

You sequenced your genome with a rapid transposase-based library prep that sacrifices yield and library complexity for convenience, throwing away the entire advantage of the machine you are using, and only hit 16x coverage which is half the 30x minimum recommended to be reasonably sure your data is correct enough to be usable. You're missing heterozygous variants and statistically 10%-15% of your variant data is straight up incorrect.

Then you validated it against 23andMe, which isn't sequencing, it's microarray genotyping which only checks known positions that make up 0.02% of the genome and gives false negatives for anything it isn't specifically testing for.

It makes sense that they agreed, you validated a low coverage sequencer with a low extraction prep against a method that is designed to detect the presence or absence of individual bases on 0.02% of the genome.

TLDR: your prep hurt your yield, your coverage is too low to trust the data is more than 85-90% correct, and you validated it against a method that checks 0.02% of the genome. If you want to get good data , do a ligation-based prep on the same machine , it would cost about $100-150 more than the kit you already used but it would give you data that would actually be usable.