I'm not changing scores for the database when the results were clearly tilted in one player's favor regardless of the 0.9 knockback hit. 3-1 in both accounts (4-1 technically for Zack). Neither set was particularly close so I don't feel the need to discredit the work Leo and Ally put forth (or the work ZeRo and Zack put forth in LQ) when it's unlikely the sets would've been different. ZeRo has a blowout set record on Dabuz, outplayed him in neutral, 2 stocked him twice, etc. A couple of Luma jab confirms would not have changed the set result unless Dabuz got multiple unlikely gimps.
Zack vs. Komo is way more suspect because of how game 3 ended but Zack utterly ruined Komo in their 5th game anyway. I don't see a point in contesting the results after-the-fact for the database when the writing was on the wall in both circumstances from how the players played their respective sets.
I think both should be considered solely because 0.9 affects EVERY FACET OF THE GAME AT EVERY STAGE. It is almost without peer how much that changes.
The fact that they didn't replay the sets means we do not have the means to declare an authentic win, ergo it is....unfortunately, fraudulent.
It feels awful to say this but who even cares about the Top 8 now? It means nothing at this point, and it's just discouraging to see how LITTLE the TOs valued the authenticity of the event in deciding against letting the players REPLAY THE SETS (even offstream for pete's sakes!)
Pardon me if I sound pushy, but I disagree. I think both matches are suspect and both players in either set were negatively affected by it. I don't think precedence or how the games went are relevant when the basic knockback formula (the MERE MEANING behind how Smash hitconfirms are) was offkilter. That's like if you switched the histun values of SF2 with SF3. It's not authentic.