Pulling back further... what is the actual theme of s2, btw? "Memory is a monster?"
I mean, that's what they say. And they certainly hit on plenty of common unreliable narrator tropes along the way.
Which is weird, though, because... none of those things seem to remotely matter.
Unreliable narrator =/= memory is unreliable, as an across-the-board truth. Either irl, or in particular types of genre storytelling like this.
In fact, Louis or Claudia or Daniel or even Armand's memory being unreliable... functionally has nothing remotely to do with the major plot twist of the story, the climax that everything hinges on. The big twist! The epic reveal!
Because the reveal is just basically that Armand was a little more involved in this one thing one time than he'd said he was.
It had nothing to do with any stories about unreliability based on memory. And the twist doesn't even recontextualize Louis' own unreliability, whether it has to do with memory or not. Because like 95% of the ways he's unreliable have nothing to do with memory or with Armand. Or even anything remotely to do with the one ugly truth Armand was holding back.
It's just... a random hodgepodge of unreliability.
It's not even a red herring, because the story doesn't actually set up from the beginning that there's something Louis doesn't know/doesn't remember right, or anything like that. It's just... here's a bunch of unrelated times Louis didn't remember, or times he didn't reveal something. For a wide variety of unrelated reasons. Ranging from someone removing a memory of his, to a possible (problematic!) implication that he's mentally ill (which had nothing to do with anything and went nowhere), to retconning his relationship with Lestat because he wanted to look more innocent, both to himself and in the interview. To just forgetting little details that weren't important because that's how memory works for everyone. To forgetting why he might have done something or not being able to remember something small he missed at the time because he wasn't listening.
Oh, also TWIST!!1! Armand underplayed his role in the trial. Surprise!
It all goes nowhere, and says nothing meaningful. About how memory works, or doesn't. About how and why people can be unreliable. There's no deeper, like... central theme there. About human nature, or the stories we tell ourselves. It's just. Here's some stuff that happened. Oh, wait. Here's some stuff that actually happened instead. What does that mean? What does that imply? What does that say? Nothing! Or some things sometimes, and some unrelated other things at other times. Whatever, who cares! Leave us alone and stop asking basic critical analysis questions of this high brow cable show we very much want everyone everyone to get obsessed with and tune in and watch forever!
But that's not... good unreliable narrator writing. Because it's not consistent, it doesn't build on itself, it doesn't say anything. It doesn't even mechanically support the twist ending climax reveal!