Linguistically you are right, a referral to a fresh hearing tomorrow doesn't make him wrong as it could still find us compliant. So maybe that's the game he's playing.
But I don't know how it could be factually true that we are compliant and still get referred; it would at least be in an area of doubt and his tweets indicate no doubt.
If he was using "should be" or "I estimate that" there's enough doubt that a referral wouldn't mean he was wrong, but if he's stating it as an unequivocal fact I think a referral would mean he was wrong. Because an unequivocal fact wouldn't be referred.