The provided file excerpts do not seem to align with the expected file types based on their names and the hint provided for review. Specifically:

- The file named `README.md` appears to contain LaTeX document content typically associated with a `.tex` file, suggesting that the file's content or name might be mislabeled or that there was an upload error.

- The file named `BIG-bench.tex` contains what seems to be an HTML comment or README-like header/footer note, which is unexpected for a `.tex` LaTeX file content. This suggests a similar issue of mislabeling or an upload mistake.

Given the apparent discrepancy between file contents and their names, and the task expectation to find author list discrepancies between a README and a `.tex` document, it's not possible to proceed as initially intended. 

A reevaluation of the files, considering their actual content rather than their names, is required to provide any relevant findings. Let's proceed by trying to identify where the author lists might be located in the two files based on their actual contents, despite the naming confusion.Following the investigation of both files and focusing on the hint concerning author list discrepancies, it seems there has been a significant confusion due to the mislabeling of the file names and content. The content expected in a `README.md` file appears to be in the LaTeX document (`BIG-bench.tex`), and the content in the `README.md` does not follow the typical markdown README structure but instead includes LaTeX commands and content.

Based on what can be inferred from the files' actual content:

1. **Issue with 'BIG-bench.tex' (which seems to be a README.md based on its content):**
   - **Issue**: "Inconsistencies in authorship representation"
   - **Evidence**: "The benchmark was developed openly on GitHub, with contributors adding tasks by way of GitHub pull requests... all authors of accepted tasks were given the opportunity to be co-authors on this paper introducing BIG-bench."
   - **Description**: This detailed description suggests an open and inclusive authorship model for contributors of the benchmark project. However, without a clear and explicit author list within this document that matches the detailed LaTeX document (incorrectly labeled `README.md`), it's challenging to verify if all contributors mentioned as part of the development process are appropriately credited in the formal author list. This lack contributes to potential discrepancies between the intended inclusive authorship model and the formal authorship declaration.

2. **Issue with 'README.md' (which appears to contain LaTeX document content based on its content):**
   - **Issue**: "Formal author list not directly visible"
   - **Evidence**: "\author{%\nAlphabetic author list:\thanks{See Section \ref{sec authors} for detailed author contributions.} \\\n\t\\input{author_list.txt}"
   - **Description**: The LaTeX content references an external `author_list.txt` for the actual author names, indicating the author list is not directly included within this document. This indirection makes it difficult to directly assess discrepancies between the described contribution process in the README (misnamed `BIG-bench.tex`) and the actual codified author list. Assuming the `author_list.txt` is accurately representing all contributors as co-authors, without directly analyzing this file, it's uncertain if all named contributors are properly acknowledged.

The investigation suggests that more than a straightforward comparison between the reported author lists, there needs to be direct access to, or inclusion of, the authorship records within these documents to thoroughly assess adherence to the inclusive authorship model described.