Imposition आरोपः

One is free to present one’s views, but it would be good to do so without misrepresenting the views of other people.

Pey-ALHvAr

vinay vAraNAsI - tirupati image does not have an axe or snake ornaments; rather venkaTeshvara manifested himself in that form for the ALHvAr, and he described it as such - (TW) . Just as venkaTeshvara manifesting in the form of a fish, or tortoise doesn’t mean he is identical with those animals; the same applies to this manifestation. Separation of deities may be verified from the ALvAr’s other works.

इरण्ड् उरुवुम् ऒऩ्ऱाय् इसैन्दु तोऩ्ऱुम्
Two forms are appearing united.

The word “uruvum” (उरुवुम्) (from rUpamum) means form.
So, clearly it’s a merging of mere “forms”, not individuals, that is appearing (not actually) united.

jnAnasambandha

vinay: TW

• jnAnasambandha was a shaiva, who distinguished him from viShNu; as may be verified from his works. Not a hari-harAbheda-vAdI.

annamAchArya

vinay: TW

annamAchArya is admitted to be a devout shrI-vaiShNava, but his words are twisted, and he too is presented as a hari-harAbheda-vAdI. A look at all his other kIrtana-s would provide unambiguous info.

The pallavi notably (following BG) provides context -

enta mAtramuna evvaru talachina anta mAtramE neevu
antarAntamu lenchi chooDa pinDantE nippaTi yannaTlu ||

Oh Venkatapati, your presence and grace depend upon how well a person thinks about you. When I observe sincerely, it is just like the size and quality of a pan-cake depending on the batter.

AnnamachArya was an initiated shrIvaiShNava; so naturally, the implication is that shaivas etc.. get lesser grace based on their lesser understanding. (“अन्तवत् तु फलं तेषां तद् भ‍वत्य् अल्प-मेधसाम् ।”)

purANa-stotra-mangling

There is a stotra to venkatesa by the saptarishis , called kali-santaarakam . Each of them sings one shloka on him. In one place, the sloka explicitly says ramapati, but the smartas have started printing and you will find even audio songs on it as umapati.
Eg. TW