The best way I can interpret this is that your post was being deliberately misleading, because you implied that roommates won't invalidate IP authentication, but you actually meant that lying about having roommates won't invalidate IP identification.
GP, if I read correctly, tries to limit the expectations we can have based on this ruling since the circumstances where unusual. (Read GPs post again for more details.)
English is not my first language but GP seemed very clear and easy to read.
The best way I can interpret this is that your post was being deliberately misleading, because you implied that roommates won't invalidate IP authentication, but you actually meant that lying about having roommates won't invalidate IP identification.
Am I missing a more reasonable interpretation?