Reason I ask is that while getting a "positive" finding of small-fiber damage is pretty much the gold standard for confirming that kind of neuropathy, a "normal" test may not eliminate the possibility (which is why I'm glad you're also having autonomic testing done).

There may still be some damage to the small fibers, but it may be patchy, or it may not be most evident in the areas from which samples were taken. Then, too, the McArthur protocols that the skin samples are generally judged by don't consider a small-fiber neuropathy "definite" unless the intraepidermal nerve fiber density figures are below the 5th or above the 95th percentile. Of course, the pathologist is also supposed to look at the condition of the nerves as well as their density--abnormally swollen or branched fibers are generally a sign of an ongoing process.

If you can get the report, I'm pretty confident I and others can interpret it. (I've had three skin biopsies, those reports, and also copies of most of the papers about the procedure.)