Quite possibly . However, if increasing the content does not make the images more clinical in the step from II to III, it's rather doubtful that this was the cause of the clinical look in II as compared to the first x-trans.
My PERSONAL WILD SPECULATION, MY HUNCH, MY IDEA, MY NON-QUANTIFIABLE thoughts about why I PERSONALLY prefer X-Trans I & III over II
(I'm only talking about RAW, everybody knows the X-Trans I jpegs are waaaay different than the later cameras)
I = 12 bit raw, less data, SEEMS to produce quite a organic roll off between light and dark
III = lots more pixels crammed into the same size sensor, produces a grainy noise pattern and texture that's pleasing, especially considering the pictures are 30% (or whatever) bigger
II = a 16mp sensor upgraded to record 14bit and tuned to extract every last drop of digital goodness, resulting in clean images
That's NOT to say that X-Trans II takes a bad shot, or is a bad sensor or that you shouldn't like it.
But it is too say I PERSONALLY prefer I and III
People complained that Leica m9 had crap ISO, so Leica made the CMOS 240, and Leica folk started a petition asking them to go back to CCD
Better isn't always better it seems
X-Pro2 ISO2500 (iirc) no grain applied, from raw - not my finest work