Not really. They're trying to split up potential causes of failure between:

1. "Funding" meaning: We knew what we had to do but didn't have enough money to do it; if we had, this path would have worked (though why it says "TAM" here I don't quite get);

2. "Technical" meaning: We knew what we wanted to do but couldn't quite make it work; if we had, this path would have worked

3. "Uptake"/"Regulatory" (perhaps not the most natural pairing, though I see why they're together) meaning "We couldn't get people to actually do it"/"The authorities wouldn't let us do it"; if we had, this path would have worked

But that is missing a much different type of failure:

4. "Strategy" meaning "This path does not actually lead to our goal"

It's easy to see why in marketing material they'd leave out that last one. They want to build confidence! But for a moonshot like this, especially a biological one, it's kind of silly to think that this is definitely the best way to achieve this goal. I am, personally, quite skeptical; this reads like a mashup of SV and germophobes (with apologies to, well, both of those groups). I hope it works! And I won't stand in its way. But I won't be betting my own money on it. Probably we will learn something interesting no matter what.

More generally, this is a distinction that a lot of people miss (often intentionally, if PR/marketing is involved): strategy and tactics are distinct and they can succeed or fail independently. The best execution (tactics) here will not help if the plan (strategy) is flawed. And there are numerous other examples from research, business, and of course everyone's favorite hobby subject, war, of what happens when your tactics are good but your strategy isn't, or vice versa, or any of the other combinations. And, of course, making decisions about when to pivot (switch strategies) and all those other fun topics.