I'm prepared for both this and the Aussie test to not pan out. I think that a successful biomarker for this disease is going to have to be one that ties closely to the pathoetiology of the disease, and I don't think either of these are it. Unfortunately, because of how long it has taken to understand this disease and how controversial it is, the bar is set extremely high.
Ignoring the fact that both groups findings would need to be independently replicated, preferably by several different groups, I don't think either of these findings are good enough. The Aussie findings are attempting to explain NK cell dysfunction at a slightly lower level. Well, we already know that NK cell function is disturbed in this disease (and several others) and we already have a test for this and have for many years, but it has never been accepted as a diagnostic test for CFS and I don't see the new findings changing any of that. The Nevada findings will need to be extended quite a bit further before they are taken seriously as they are very preliminary and as far as I know so far unexplained.