No. The argument is perhaps more dogmatic than deep, but not long. Let me draft it here, and we'll see whether it expands into its own article.
I want to check two things: (1) the Service answers to its clients the same Collection of Cars that it gets from the Repository; (2) the Service uses the service header from the Supplier in order ask the Repository for all the Cars.
Test 1 checks a return value and test 2 checks a method expectation. In principle, I could change these things independently; therefore, I "ought" to test them separately. The assertions (the return value is correct; the expectation is correct) are unrelated; therefore, I "ought" to check them separately.
I would check these two behaviors separately precisely because the guideline "check one thing in each test" has helped me identify so many design risks in the past, and maybe I just don't yet see the design risk that this test is alerting me to. I don't know yet.
That's the entire argument. I would tend to write one test, but be prepared to split it into two tests later, when I want to change one aspect of that behavior without changing the other.