Certainly can't dispute the historical batting average, but it's worth noting that at least one of these milestones (interim data) is nearly completely within the company's control at this point. If they miss that one without explanation, it's on them. Most (all?) previous timeline misses that I can think of involve enrolling patients in trials, which is very much not in the company's complete control. This isn't to excuse past misses - those misses show excessive optimism, lack of foresight or understanding, or some combination thereof. I'm just suggesting a way that at least one of these timelines significantly differs from past timelines, so one may reasonably expect a different result.
As for completing the enrollment of the last ten patients, I'm hopeful that they know something we don't, like that they've maintained a list of patients screened who would now fit the criteria. That could make the timeline accessible, and I would hope that they wouldn't put out such a near-term timeline without some certainty that they could hit it. However, as you've said, their batting average on things not completely in their control is not stellar, so I understand that pessimism.