There's still no direct way to detect which pin blocks it from opening. Maybe you could determine if the failed pin is the same as a previous attempt by listening with a stethoscope, or very finely measuring the turning angle, but you can't directly feel out which pin. So there may still be a way to reduce the search space in theory, but that attack still seems very difficult to pull off, and for the complexity it seems vastly better than previous locks.
Well, it didn't advertise itself as a "very difficult to pull off lock", or a "vastly better than previous lock". It advertised itself as an "unpickable lock". That's a very strong claim to be making. I wouldn't be satisfied with anything less than a proof that it is impossible to reduce the search space down to sub-exponential.
Building a lock which does not leak any information about what's happening inside is equivalent to building a mechanical, room temperature quantum computer. For if that information isn't leaking to the environment in some way, there is no mechanism to decohere a superposition state. Hence in principle a mechanical lock which is secure in the information theoretic sense is impossible. It is still theoretically possible to make a computationally secure lock (eg a mechanical implementation of a hash function). But there's currently no real proof that one-way functions are actually one-way. The security of such a lock is subject to a foundational guess in cryptography.
