Actually not: if she uses the name Oracle in the title of her book, she makes a promises to her readers: «I'm going to tell you a story about Oracle» and her readers will buy her book just because of that promise, but if she doesn't maintain her promise, then we are facing the classical Chekov's gun.
I think you didn't understand what I wrote: in this story we see Barbara enter in this Arkham Institute, start the rehabilitation, face a mystery and at this point the book end, so we have in this book two plot: the plot of a girl who have to deal with her paralysis and the "dear old plot" of the secret experiments made on human guinea pigs. This is the actual problem I was talking about: the writer didn't told about how her Barbara deals with her paralysis, instead she use this mystery and the final fight against the bad guy to solve the story. In fact we see the bad guy defeated and immediately after the fight all the anger, all the resentment her Barbara had is "magically" vanished, like if the fight was the cathartic experience she needed to heal her soul. You have all the right to have different opinions about this way to write, but to me it is a very childish way to solve a plot, I thought it was childish in movies like "Happy feet" and I think it is childish in this book; so like you see it isn't a problem of book i thought to read, it is a problem a storytelling.