If one's going to hold Rand as having possibly betrayed the established O'ist 'virtue' of Honesty, one properly should clarify the context that *she* meant in her use of the term.
In Galt's speech, she defines, describes, delineates, and practically extemporizes all fundamental aspects of her 'meaning'. Regarding your specific concern, most of that paragraph on Honesty is irrelevent, but for...
1-(def): "Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value, that [nothing] is a value if obtained by fraud." Clearly, re 'others', the virtue of honesty is quite secondary...depending on what type of 'others' is meant. More pertinently, as a virtue, it's Primarily, if not ONLY, concerned with honesty-to-ONE'S-SELF.
2-(delineation): "---that honesty is not a social duty, not a sacrifice for the sake of others, but the most profoundly selfish virtue man can practice: his refusal to sacrifice the reality of his own existence to the deluded consciousness of others."
What this implies re honesty-to-others is not something that Rand spoke about at all, as far as I'm aware; ergo, any implications seen there by an arguer, should really be explicated by them...before analyzing a betrayal of the virtue per se as a 'possibility' to be considered..
What honesty 'others' deserve from one is properly determinable by what (and, more importantly, why that) value-level that/those other(s) are held at, and, whether or not (as well as why) there is any 'obligation' considered as 'owed' them re the subject matter. --- Though, Rand never even said anything like that, to my knowledge, but, that's the way I see it.
From what I see, your considerations that she didn't make her life an 'open-book' for her fans is innuended by you as relevent, but, that I see, really has absolutely nothing to do with her allegedly 'lying' to others (by inaction, as you also seem to innuend). --- Indeed, only if one can argue that she had some moral 'obligation' to spill all her life's-guts can this argument be made. However, where this kind of obligation would be based from you have not even hinted; you've merely presumed it as apparently a pointless-to-question assumption.
Otherwise, Fred, quite thought-provoking. In spite of my reservations, sancted.