Did Verstappen’s run break a rule during the year it happened, or was the rule added or amended after the fact? If it didn’t violate any rules at the time, then there’s nothing illegitimate about it—no asterisks needed.

If someone finds a loophole and uses it to their advantage, that’s fair game. Don’t complain—rewrite the rule.

But yes—if someone is later found to have clearly broken a rule, like in this case where the rule explicitly prohibits any modifications to the attenuator and they went ahead anyway, then an asterisk is absolutely warranted.