I'm of course offering gentle speculation.
It would seem injudicious of them (but possible) to shoot themselves in the foot from RB team personnel making statements about performance so far.
They absolutely must know of the boundary in regards to accounting for this in/out of cost cap limitation.
Hypothetical projection, if there were three engine in pool, one with more extensive lifing used, with the other two expected to reach their limits by last race. The "oldest" could be ascribed FP and maybe sprint duties to conserve the other two.
It could look like you can make reasonable arguments in either direction for replacement on one unit on "ultimately" reliability ticket.
They all must look at them in this way, that's all teams, to minimise risk of failure.
How hard do you run a unit at end of projected mileage, how brave are you in that confidence, even though "on the book" it says it SHOULD make it at that deployment rate. Still that's reliability in purest sense, but a little obscure in absolute definition. But then that does define much of these cars in absolute terms, knowing the boundary and just how close you can run to it.
Here it seems, just the words used to describe how you've acted can "blend" it to either side of the cost cap boundary.


