I mean, technically, there's always a possibility of getting HIV. Particles in your body could spontaneously quantum tunnel at the same time into the form of an HIV virus. This is basically impossible, but not actually (p = 0.00) impossible.
At some point you have to look at a probability and say - that's basically not transmissible.
That seems like a big if? maybe 0.5% of people actually are succeptable to the lowered viral load. Have studies been done that would detect such a population?
One reason we believe this is that we can typically detect virus quantities way too small to reliably replicate in culture, and believe that in vivo infection is even harder than in culture (because of innate immune response and the body not being composed just of the most susceptible cells).
You generally can't measure infectious dose directly without a highly unethical challenge study. You can sometimes know concentrations that did or didn't result in infection in various real world scenarios, and sometimes you have circumstantial evidence (e.g. you can know how much virus a person sheds, and what proportion of a room with certain ventilation quantities got infected).
The usual way of achieving undetectable viral load is via anti-retroviral drugs and I think this works in most people, at least so long as they get early enough treatment and keep getting it. The main reason to measure viral load in the first place is to get an idea of how well the drugs are working and if they need to be changed.
that's what I would think, it's got to be quantifiable: some sensitivity metric of the concentration of virus particles the device can detect vs the minimum quantity which is needed for infection. It's clear we can articulate these matters in the abstract, how does one go about actually measuring such a thing?