Theranos have been very, very squirrelly on details about their testing platform, claiming that they need to keep them as trade secrets in order to maintain competitiveness. Ordinarily, the tests would be independently evaluated in the peer-reviewed literature, and through the literature is how scientists and physicians would assess the value of what Theranos is offering; without peer-reviewed literature, there is little to go on. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't, only peer-reviewed literature counts so we don't know.
Theranos has an unusual board of directors for a diagnostic testing company, with surprisingly little medical experience overall. Holmes herself is a college dropout—it's very hard to compete in a highly specialized and technical field without the proper knowledge base and experience, and traditionally that would be with an M.D.+fellowship or Ph.D.+postdoc. In interviews, when things get the least bit technical, Holmes sounds like she doesn't know what she's talking about. Theranos' patents, of which Holmes is a named inventor, are (IMHO) vaguely written. Could Holmes be a diagnostics savant? It's possible, but I don't see credible evidence to suggest this is the case.
The popular media has hyped up the company technology a lot, but in reality microfluidics is not new to the diagnostics arena, and it remains unclear as to what exactly Theranos offers as an advancement on what others are doing. There are also many technical issues to be considered with fingersticks vs. venipuncture samples, and Theranos has never explained how they have overcome those issues other than unsubstantiated assurances that their tests match standard lab tests.
There is also a fundamental problem with the entire hypothesis underlying Theranos: which I very crudely summarize as more tests = better health. That hypothesis is sophomoric and does not hold under the current thinking of evidence-based medicine. One can over test, and it has real, proven consequences towards the health of the patient in terms of invasiveness, costs, and potential risks due to unneeded procedures.
Does Theranos have something unique? It's not impossible. My null hypothesis is that they do not, and until I see something in the peer-reviewed literature suggesting otherwise, I am thinking it's smoke and mirrors.
Edit: All that text and I didn't directly answer your question! Consider my bloviation proof of my credentials as an academic. The earlier WSJ article raised questions about irregularities in regulatory-mandated proficiency testing, a serious allegation. My interpretation of this new, linked article is that there might be something to the allegation.