regardless of what attributes the FIA classes as TC and what attributes the FIA doesn't call TC .....
inertia in an ICE tends to resist wheel spin (and underrotation) - so high inertia ie a flywheel might seem useful.. but ..
low inertia ie 'without flywheel' is chosen to avoid slowing gearshifts and lowering crankshaft resonant frequency
nevertheless the F1 ICE has inertia and the MGU-K inertia adds more inertia
a much larger eg 300 kW MGU-K will add a further inertia (and the PU will be slower to accelerate/decelerate itself)
the ICE's ability to accelerate/decelerate itself is always better than an MGU-K's ability to accelerate/decelerate itself
so regardless of the FIA the 2025/6 PU will have more inherent resistance to wheelspin (and locking)
mapping had already in the NA days regulations that ....
restricted the rate of torque reduction (with rpm eg during wheel spin) demanded by the software functionality
the current and future systems reproduce these restrictions ... but ....
fundamentally the actual torque changes can't comply during sudden high-rate-of-change events eg wheelspin
this (dynamic response) 'time constant' of the PU will be at least c.100 msec
ie for 100 msec the PU is acting for the driver more than the regulations seem to allow
also the dynamic response of the K machine etc could be designed to give further hidden benefits