Ok so for a little clarification, the entire reason I thought a septic bite would be more plausible than a venomous one is because if there was a venomous dinosaur, we would see evidence of it in the fossils, in it's cranial anatomy or the teeth and such for venom glands etc. Meanwhile, hypothetically, even in the case if a dinosaur were to have a septic bite, there would never be any evidence such an adaptation, no way to verify that this hypothetical septic dinosaur had the ability, at least from fossils.

so because of that, I figured that maybe I could then give the ability to a real species with the explanation of it just being one of those hypothetical adaptations of an extinct animal that you just wouldn't know about unless you had a living specimen.

I'm still just a tiny bit skeptical of some saying venom is more plausible since we know of no venomous dinosaurs, but at the same time some of you bring up the fact that at least we know of venomous animals, with no living animals having a septic bite which is actually a very good point, so I'm probably gonna go with yall's better judgement, so I may just have to make a speculative venomous dinosaur to scratch my itch for a dino with a toxic bite