That hardly matters. Anything observable is in the observable universe. Anything outside the observable universe is not observable even in principle.

We might in principle be able to see beyond the surface of last scattering using ultracold neutrino or ultra-low-frequency gravitational radiation astronomy some decades from now, but that just gives us a view of the universe before there were molecules (let alone stars and galaxies), and we could only surmise that what we see at such a huge redshift evolved into the sorts of things (galaxies, stars) close to here-and-now. That might justify a "as far as we know" comment like yours; for now, however, it is better to say that we really just don't know because we don't have nearly enough data yet.

Unless there is a violation of Lorentz invariance available to us very near hear-and-now, there is no hope of seeing long distances at our scale factor (which is a spacelike hypersurface in the standard cosmology's comoving frame, which means essentially that it's a collection of things all at the same "time", but that's coordinate time, and in this case the scale factor is the coordinate). Consequently we can't even be certain about highly-redshifted galaxies' fates at a(t)=1. To be sure would need to outrun the metric expansion of space, or equivalently, we would have to move much more quickly towards a cosmologically-redshifted source of the fastest known messengers than those relativistic neutrinos, photons, or gravitational waves that it emits have been moving towards us. There is an enormous amount of indirect evidence that shows that nothing observable moves like that, and plenty of direct tests of the relevant part of the equivalence principle that require Local local invariance everywhere in the universe since the electroweak epoch moments after the hot big bang.

So while most astrophysicists and physical cosmologists would bet that that there is physics like ours at great distances, including "just one metre, or just one megaparsec" (or even much further) outside our Hubble volume, there is no honest way to assign a probability of that being correct at this time. We can only say that it is consistent with the data we have on cosmic inflation (mainly from the cosmic microwave background's inhomogeneities), and it is exceptionally hard to produce a consistent theory allowing for very different physics just beyond the farthest galaxies we can see, yet still match the overwhelming majority of the data we have collected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_%28cosmology%29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_horizon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_vi...

So, the tl;dr is that wondering about what's outside the observable universe might be fun, but it's not scientific because any hypotheses one might generate can never be verified by observation, even in principle, by the very definition of "observable universe". At best we can only hope that the observable universe is bigger than we think today (e.g. by a very surprising resolution to the tensions in the cosmic-distance ladders, by the discovery of wormholes and comparable topological "defects" in the universe, or by the discovery of faster-than-light travel). I happen to hope some of that, but have no honest basis for that hope.