Appeals Committee. Disputed situations in tournaments.

I picked up a couple of piles of gold there and left when I realized I made a mistake (we were playing at 2 AM, but it wasn't critical)... the question is, what was the point of writing to Stinger that I took a couple of piles of gold?

Hmm, in this case, you simply interpreted the situation in your own favor without informing either the opponent or the judges. And that's strange. All the more strange that you also had an expert view of the land afterwards. All the more strange that you have plenty of instructional videos and a large amount of material specifically dedicated to the map generator. And the strangest thing of all is that you didn't consider it necessary to notify the opponent about a violation on your part that had already come to light, even if unintentional.
What's the point of writing to Stinger about "a couple of piles of gold" — are you serious right now? In Heroes, sometimes even 10 gold coins decide the outcome... And here, near that road, you collected three piles of 2800 gold and a pile of gems at turn 121 (and before that, at turn 117, also a campfire, a pile of shields, a chest, and gold) — in a growth buyout scenario, this is significant, especially since you were also trading resources there. That's the first thing. The second thing is that you didn't leave someone else's respawn. After that — following the collection of those "couple of piles" — you took the Griffin Conservatory on someone else's respawn, meaning when it had already become obvious that it was someone else's respawn (and the talk about "zoning out at 2 AM" is just childish). One could argue about where the respawn boundary lies — there are formal loopholes in the rules to latch onto, but, I repeat, there is your own town nearby, near which the generator clearly marked the respawn boundaries in that area — combined with the mine, that is sufficient, at the very least to pause the game and request the judges.
Or, in your opinion, is an unintentional (non-deliberate) violation not a violation, and therefore a victory in similar situations is legitimate?
I took the trouble to review the recording from your side (originally I thought the Conservatory was taken first, and then the road was revealed).
Chronology. (In my subjective view)
Turn 117 — the road is revealed — an obvious encroachment onto another respawn (but you zoned out), someone even wrote about the other respawn in the chat. Nearby the road, after it was revealed, Pyrrhus picked up a campfire, shields, a chest worth 1000, and a pile of gold worth 1000.
Turn 121 — Pyrrhus further picks up three piles of gold worth 2800 and a pile of gems near the road on someone else's respawn, securing the buyout before taking the big Conservatory at the main.
Turn 122 — Pyrrhus takes the Conservatory on someone else's respawn (just a level-3 Conservatory). After this, a view of the land is cast, but you didn't even look at the roads of the neighboring respawn (though you usually scan the whole map — there's plenty of time to check everything — what if you have to retreat to other respawns in the endgame...).
Of course, there's nothing to inform the opponent about...
In the end, you write the following in the AK thread: guys, I unintentionally broke the rules because I zoned out. So here, by "the code," everything is obvious. The opponent makes a decision — either to count it as a tech loss for you, or simply to annul the result and replay the game. At a tournament, it would be an unambiguous tech loss: all your actions after the road was revealed, starting from turn 117, constitute violations that provided a very serious advantage (an undeniable 5+ thousand for the buyout plus the controversially contested level-3 Conservatory) and the victory in the game.