Not only the movie can be "simulated" by starting from a savestate, it is actually achieved in the BKM by starting from a disguised savestate.
Sure, the BKM doesn't specify CPU registers or RAM contents yet (but, as seen on the first page of the thread, adelikat already considers doing it when necessary).
OK, let's call it "partial savestate" for now.
Now, if you say that specifying the initial game state using "partial savestate" (new tags) is not the same as specifying the initial state using old savestate tag, then indeed, my assertion would be a
fallacy of four terms.
But I consider it to be the same thing (when talking about TASing).
In my opinion, a genuine TAS movie should only contain instructions (code, not data) which describe player's actions (pressing a button, switching disk, etc).
If a movie contains a pre-prepared data which represents a finished result of player's actions, this is not a pure TAS movie (doesn't mean it must always be rejected, e.g. some movies start from dirty SRAM, which essentially is data = result of playing actions that were too boring to include in the published TAS).
This data takes some non-zero time to prepare, but when inserted in the movie it effectively takes 0 frames, and its actual time is not accounted in the final time of the TAS. I consider this to be a violation of speedrunning spirit. I'm okay when this is done as an entertainment boost, but don't agree with the movie being Vaultable.
If adelikat were to submit a movie where the state of registers were achieved by describing the necessary player's actions (e.g. the BKM would contain a script which powers console on and off until it notices the trick worked), I wouldn't have any objections. And of course I also wouldn't have any objections if it was a movie achieving the trick by resets. Because it would be a genuine TAS, not a "TAS + some unaccounted activity".