What about this research indicates to you that it doesn't address the accuracy issue?
The existing alternatives do have access to the bloodstream.
> The existing alternatives do have access to the bloodstream.
So? Who says otherwise? People don't want invasive tests that have direct contact with their bloodstream.
Who says that's not addressed by this technology?
> directly improve quality of life a lot more than the annoyance of applying the sensor under the skin
How annoying is it? They don't cut a hole and insert it. How can you say how much it would improve the quality of life?
I don't see where all these assumptions about this technology come from.