Will easily get loose with a lot of rounds firing.
So?
What I said is this:
It's not better or equal to a pin-retained platform like AR-15, but compared to traditional AK, its very likely to be superior. If for no other reason then simply because it has 2 points of retention as opposed to 1.
Now the question is, how much better is it compared to old mechanism. The reports on that will have to wait because only the 100M/200 series and the new AK-12/15 series have this, and neither have made it to US civilian market as yet, which is from where we can expect some sort of objective dissemination of this that is available for public consumption.
But how much of zero is actually lost over time even on traditional Picatinny dust covers like those of FAB Defence or Texas Weapon Systems (which are actually imported & used by Russian SOF)? Russians have been using TWS & Zenit rails all over their Areas of Operations (Caucasus, Donbass, Syria & PMCs in many places of the world) and for assault roles or infantry roles (<300m engagements) it doesn't seem like its a deal-breaker and infact seems to be working fine.
So to sum it up - AR15 (or any similar design with P-rail sitting on a pin-retained platform) is indeed objectively better than AK when it comes to retaining zero for the optics over time. But if for whatever reason an AK is what you have, the Railed dust covers from reputable manufacturers like FAB, Zenit & TWS are not at all bad. How much better than them can the new 2-point retention dust covers on 100M/200-series is too early to say for sure but pure elementary leads me to believe it may be better.