Not even close.  Not even a cigarette.

First, I won't speak for my colleagues, but I and my dear spouse for two did NOT get any EIP.  Our AGI was just too high.  Just a statement.  NOT bragging.

Second, your point had been discussed here in the proverbial dead-horse and all other kinds of dead-animal ways.  (Out of respect for Joshua, dead-dog is excluded.)   

Let's cut and dice.

H&W got a total of $2000 in EIP (based on 2018 and/or 2019 AGI).  Their IRS records, according to you, and according to reality, showed $1,000 each. 

H $1,000.  W$1,000.  

Let's say their entitled amount -  based on 2020 AGI - was higher, and was 2,800.  (If the entitled amount was lower, NO clawback.) 

If properly reported, Line 30 RRC would show $800.  (2,800 Entitled - 2,000 total EIP).

The bank record (plus perhaps the debit card) would show total receipts/deposits of $2,000.  

IF the couple told me they got only $1,000, Line 30 would show $1,800.  IRS would adjust down to $800.  the adjustment would be $1,000, which would be half of their total EIP or the amount on either spouse's IRS records as referenced/suggested by you.

That's why my fellow colleagues have been screaming in their own voices and tones and pitches and words "Check the accuracy of the EIP amounts provided to you from your clients!!!"

Now why would the client (in that example) tell me only $1,000 was received?  And in your case, why would you compute Line 30 with only the amount on your or your spouse's IRS records (1/2 of the total), instead of the FULL amount?  This is a bit mind boggling to me.   (Because I never learned how to boggle my own mind, let's just skip this rhetorical question.)

Here are the possibilities answers, though:

1.  One of them looked at his/her/its IRS record as you suggested, and told me his/her/its EIP amount and I treated it as the total, AFTER confirming with him/she/it/them that the amount provided to me was the total.

2.  One of them cashed the check/debit card/whatever and bought bourbon or lost it all in poker without letting the better (or worse) half know. 

3. ????

In any case, in the case that was originally discussed in this thread, the Asker (PPECPA) swore that his/her/its client(s) swore that (1) the total EIP amount was accurately communicated to him/her/it; (b) the total EIP matched to the bank deposit records; and (c) 100% of the EIP was deposited to the bank.  Yet, given all the heavy duty swearing, the fact remained that 50% of the total EIP was adjusted out.   If all those sworn statements were facts, one explanation could be that some kind of mess-up existed in the IRS records, or in the software computation.  

Rest assured your ballet-related info was NOT new in this forum.  Everyone here may be screaming either tomato or tomahto or (Canadians) tomaehto or (those under the Tuscan sun for too long) toMAYto, but we all know our bikes. 

And Tomatoes.  

For the love of taxes, please don't project the solution to your problem as the universal truth.