I'm called back to MTC the following Monday, the kind of summons that arrives without explanation and doesn't invite questions. The building feels quieter than usual when I walk in. I'm late, by minutes and not hours, but late enough to drawn attention on myself. When I open the conference room door, everyone is already seated. My heart sinks at the sight of Oscar sitting opposite of me.

The FIA representative doesn't waste time with pleasantries. He introduces himself, confirms names for the record, then opens a folder thick enough to scared the hell out of me.

"We'll begin with the conclusion", he says, voice even. "No illegal systems were found".

The words land cleanly, but no one in the room seems to be happy. A foreseen result, as we would never willing to cheat.

Oscar exhales through his nose, then tilts his head slightly.
"But...?", he asks back the officer, not challenging but curious.

A few people glance at him. He shrugs casually as if he just stated out a common knowledge. "There's always a "but", am I right?"

The FIA official doesn't disagree. He nods once, grateful for Oscar's help which has saved him the trouble of transition.

He summarizes without theatrics. The cars passed inspection, both physically and digitally. Hardware, software, and ECU checks showed no irregularities. No undeclared systems. No driver-assist mechanisms. No evidence of shared inputs or coordinated behavior. The control-car testing reduced correlation significantly. Cognitive and verbal assessments showed no signs of collusion or intent.

"All findings are within regulatory bounds," he reconfirms the result again. "There is no violation found".

The FIA representative continues as no one in the room speaks. "A detailed report will be provided to McLaren and released publicly following the Canadian Grand Prix".

Zak and Andrea exchange a look of worried and I don't dare to ask what would happen after that public statement. Probably another social media outbreak, perhaps PR department might need to work overnight. But they need something to work with, and I guess we are about to find out now.

The FIA officer doesn't raise his voice or soften it when he shows us the true problem we need to take care of. "The issue is not what we found. It's where the anomaly appears."

He gestures to the screen behind him where a simplified chart replaces the dense data from earlier. Two lines which are early overlapping. Then under different conditions, drifting apart.

"The correlation only presents itself when both drivers compete together under live race conditions. When variables change - different car, different environment, controlled testing - the similarity decreases."

He lets that settle before going on. "In simple terms, we can rule out the car, software and intent. What we cannot rule out is the interaction effect of this specific pairing".

Someone at the table asks what that means, exactly. We don't like to play the guessing game here.

"It means", the FIA official replies, "as long as both drivers continue to race together, we cannot determine whether the correlation is coincidental or systemic. The data remains contaminated by the same constant".

I understand it then, fully and all at once. We are the changing factor of the race.

"To achieve certainty, one element of the pairing must be removed temporarily. That is the only way to isolate the variable and close the investigation conclusively."

He doesn't say suspension. He doesn't say punishment. He frames it as necessity, as if this were a lab and not a team, as if we were parameters instead of people.

He adds in, almost apologetically, "It is a requirement for scientific clarity."

The logic is simple enough that there's nowhere to hide from it. As long as we race together, the question stays open. In this room, uncertainty is unacceptable. That's why FIA got involved at the first place and they won't leave until they got at least one believable excuse.

"We are recommending a temporary adjustment to the driver lineup. One driver from the Norris – Piastri pairing will need to sit out a single Grand Prix. That is the only way to isolate the variable and close the investigation conclusively and final report will be out after Canada race."

He doesn't look at either of us when he says it, like it was an easy thing to speak out loud. The word recommending hangs there, careful and strategic. Not an order. Not yet - but heavy enough that everyone in the room understands how quickly it could become one.

"This would allow us to observe the remaining driver under standard race condition without the influence of the pairing variable. The scope is limited. One event only."

Someone asks what happens if the recommendation isn't followed. The answer is immediate. "Then the FIA will need to consider further measures to ensure regulatory confidence."

"The choice of driver is left to McLaren", he finishes. "Our role is to define what is necessary. Implementation is your responsibility."

He closes his notebook, stands up and thanks us for our cooperation, perhaps this were the end of a routine audit and not the moment something irreversible slid into place.

Zak is the first to speak once the door shuts. "You're not being asked to keep your distance anymore", he says, tone stripped of the careful edges he usually keeps in public. "That part is done."

The words land oddly, freedom arriving too late to feel like relief. Zak continues, "What matters now is the decision. One of you will not race in Canada."

He looks at both of us properly this time. Not as drivers, not as assets or public figures, just two people sitting at the center of a problem that has outgrown its origin.

"We'll give you the night to think and rest," Andrea adds thoughtfully. "By tomorrow morning, we would need to provide an answer."

There's no ultimatum in his voice, but the meaning is clear enough. If no decision is made, one will be made for us. Either way, it would bring a huge impact for both of us.