There is being an asshole and there is being an asshole who has done something tangibly wrong in a moral, ethical and legal sense, that you can prove.
There has to be a sound and clearly stated reason to be punitive and the degree of punishment needs to at least appear to be commensurate with the wrongdoing.
So, what, if anything, do you do to this fellow and his supervisor if you are the University?
I believe the author has admitted wasting their time and apologized. Some rationale about not knowing how else to demonstrate what he wanted to demonstrate. Looks like there is no big argument here, but how much punishment can be meted out for that?
Let's say the University can and does withdraw the paper - they need to have some sound reasons to do that, if they already approved the submission (passively or actively). The question becomes, what new information has come to light since then that can justify that action?
Let's say the proceedings folks cancel it - same situation...if it was accepted, what has changed?
IOW, would either party say....well we screwed up and did not know what we were clearing.....whoa.
Let's say it is determined that the IRB should not have granted a human use waiver, or, if it is in their jurisdiction, should have found it be unethical. If they now say that it constitutes human use, there is a whole shitload of ramifications. If they now decide it is unethical, what changed?
So, trying to un-ring the bell has some serious problems. Adding new regs....added agreements, signed promises, however you want to say it - yeah, that can certainly be done.
Somebody want to start litigation of some kind - ok, now show damages.
We all know that we put more checks and balances in place than the resources to manage, let alone, enforce them
There may be a lot of poor judgement here, especially by the author, and I would not want to be in that fellow's shoes or his supervisor....but I don't see that something very severe will be done...and I may find out otherwise as it is story that is unfolding.