You haven't shown the lie you claim exists. Those could be references to completely different tests. (Or not, but from the limited information we can't say either way)

The surrounding context makes it clear that isn't the case.

From the linked post: "In September 2020, Gjovik hired an industrial hygienist to test the indoor air at her apartment. She purchased an inspection, soil testing, and a two-hour sorbent tube-based TO-17 air panel. Only half the total contaminants were accounted for in the test and the California EPA informed her that testing with Summa canisters for 24 hours is superior and would have yielded better results. Still, Gjovik’s limited testing returned results showing a number of the chemicals in use by Apple at ARIA including Acetone, Acetonitrile, Acetaldehyde, Benzene, 1,2-Dichloroethane, Ethanol, Ethylbenzene, Hexane, Isopropanol, Isopropyl toluene, Methylene Chloride, Toluene, and Xylene."

From the 2021 SF Bay View article: "I did try to do my own testing, but it was incredibly expensive and turned out to be insufficient. I wanted to get some formal data in the brief time before I moved out, so I hired an industrial hygienist to sample the indoor air and some of the topsoil. Despite the $1,555 I had to pay for it, the results were inconclusive. Apparently a different test – a “summa canister” – over a longer period of time would have been better. "

This doesn't prove that she's lying. It proves that at a particular moment in time (day:hour:minute:second) she tested the air and had to spend $1500 to do it and it came up inconclusive.

That doesn't align with how industrial air pollution works.

I am interpreting that as her testing the air at a particular moment in time, and in 2021, the results from that specific test were inconclusive, but in 2024, they were very much not inconclusive. Either the article in 2021 was misleading, or the current one is.