For what it's worth, in
2399M, got4n also employed a strategy
[1] that I showed him
[2] to pull off a certain trick. Like in this case, I have also had reason to be annoyed because the strategy I showed him was not even close to optimized, yet he chose to copy it verbatim. I don't know if it's precisely the same to the frame, but it certainly looks like the same input to what I showed him before.
I chose not to say anything about it at the time because I didn't want any credit for the run. I was not actively involved in the creation of the run, and even if got4n recreated some input from mine, I couldn't care less. The TAS had several thousand views on youtube.
Did got4n just lie to several thousand people because he presented input that in some small capacity resembled that of someone else as his own?
[3] Did tasvideos.org unwittingly lie to several thousand people on the same grounds? Despite not being able to know any better? Did I lie to several thousand people by choosing to not disclose this fact?
None of these. If someone doesn't want credit, they're not being credited. That's just how it is, and that is very much how it works outside of the world of TASes as well.
After all, you can't force an artist to sign their own painting.
[3]: Never mind the fact that credit in a TAS is so much more than just input. Strategies, routing and research are very important as well, but somehow they're not part of the discussion. Why don't all of the people who do that kind of stuff get co-authorship as well?