Riverkid, could a
to-infinitive be interpreted that way (i.e., speculative) because the present participle, in its capacity to express an on-going event, is part actualized and part unactualized, whereas the infinitive is all unactualized. Now, "unactualized" doesn't mean the event never happened or never took place. It means not connected to a particular time or place. What the following author calls universe time.
Mood: universe timeThe infinitive and the participles [are] relative insofar as time is concerned because they express events in time with no reference to the present. /.../ As a consequence, non-finite verbs present their event merely as an idea, as something conceivable whose relations to a particular time and a particular place are not actualized, ...
To give them the potential for referring to a determined place in time, the quasi-nominal forms are provided with a distinct way of representing universe time : it must, of course, be conceived of as capable of containing any event but without any instant dividing it into different spheres or even any point where a subject can be situated. Since they involve a distinct way of representing universe time, the quasi-nominal forms constitute a separate mood.
Here's an example from event mechanics.
Let’s assume that an election has been held in a certain country. This election occurs at a specific time and place. As such the event is inseparable from a particular “here and now.” In fact we refer to the election as having taken “place.” In this case we would say that an actual event has taken place. As a first approximation, when press agencies announce or comment on this election, they do not broadcast the event itself but a message about the event. Here we can state that while the event itself is actual, the production and distribution of messages about it constitute a virtualization of the event, one supplied with all the attributes previously associated with virtualization: The event is detached from a specific time and place, ...
Read more here