Yes, it is required to you to be able to make this statement. This relates to the idea of a null hypothesis.
In order to make this claim you need to know that we have been able observe a perturbation in our orbit. If any such alteration of our orbit were so tiny that it was below our ability to detect, then there would be no difference between what we calculated and observed even though such a perturbation did happen and did not magically revert to some “normal”.
Now, obviously we have only been able to measure highly accurately in the last 100 years. I dare say that these ancient observatories (its 75,000 years now, this number keeps getting bigger, last time it was 40,000, just where do you think we’ve been able to document our planetary orbit that long ago) had far less sensitivity to detect small changes.
Now supposedly you think we’ve observed such a change but can’t seem to think of any examples. Makes me wonder if you are just making it up.