Does listing of individual contributions in "Mega-Authorship" papers always follow best practice guidelines?

It may also be extraordinarily difficult in papers with large numbers of authors from multiple institutions for the lead authors to keep track of the source and relative significance of the contributions. Certainly, that would be more useful to reviewers of grant or promotion applications than the frequently observed "Author 1, Author 2 .... Author 67, et al." now starting to be used for these papers. [Extracted from the article]