But you let them off the hook by setting V2 to 480V and not V1, make them work it out and show their work.
The NEC is a little vague on the subject of parallel conductors. NEC 310.10(H)(2) lists the characteristics that parallel conductors need to have:
(1) Be the same length.
(2) Consist of the same conductor material.
(3) Be the same size in circular mil area.
(4) Have the same insulation type.
(5) Be terminated in the same manner.
But it fails to identify the actual goal we are trying to obtain and what it takes to reach that goal. Probably because there are many different ways to get there and they wanted to simplify it.
The goal is to have the current split evenly within some given tolerance, a tolerance that is not given. Since the current will split in a way that equalizes the voltage drop along the parallel runs anything that affects the voltage drop will affect the equal split. All the things in the list should affect voltage drop, although I'm not sure how #4 does. And injecting current into one of the parallel conductors will effect the overall voltage drop in that conductor, and require the current split to change to compensate.
The unanswered question in the code would be, how much of tolerance should be allowed in the current split? In any real-world installation, the parallel runs are going to be slightly different and the current split will not be equal. Is tolerance 0% and therefore not obtainable in the real world, 5%, 10%, or what? I would think a difference in current split up to the current carrying capacity of an individual leg was acceptable, but it's not written anywhere to allow that. If someone made up a set of parallel conductors where a perfect split was required to not exceed the conductor ampacity it would be code compliant but in operation, it could overload a conductor.