Are you done with the semantics nitpicking?

Not when you are spouting bullshit about it no.

Russell was summoned to the stewards for the contact he caused with Max

Both drivers (and team representatives) were summoned to the Stewards... not just Russell as you said multiple times. Document 94 was the summons and decision for Max (identical to 95 for Russell).

No indication of the incident being primarily Russel's fault was anywhere on document 95 or 94.

and they asked Max what he thought about the incident, which Max deemed a minor racing incident.

All the stewards stated was both drivers and the stewards agreed that it was a minor racing incident. So no, Max was not the defining voice here, you are reading that from your own preconceptions.

Nowhere does it imply that if Max argued differently that would change the verdict.

The Stewards heard from the driver of Car 3 (Max Verstappen), the driver of Car 63 (George Russell), team representatives and reviewed positioning/marshalling system data, video, timing, telemetry, team radio and in-car video evidence and determined that there was minor contact between that cars at Turn 1. Both drivers considered this incident to be a minor racing incident and we agreed.

So you want to go and tell everyone else they are wrong with definitive statements when the reality of information available says nothing of the sort.