Most, but not all. In other words, the most important document, the log, was not landed.
Did these documents include the last muster roll prior to the battle? If not, this would be another major important item, in relation to the personnel aboard the vessel. A muster roll dated a year prior to the battle would not have included all subsequent enlistments, discharges, desertions, etc., so would not have included much of importance.
Union Navy regulations required that quarterly returns were to be sent to the Navy Department at the end of each quarter. Whether the Confederate Navy had similar regulations I am not certain of, and whether they were followed rigorously is another matter.
Also, the use of an alias seemed to be a common factor amongst sailors of the time. If Samuel Risien had served under an alias, and there is no later record of this fact, as there was in the case of Henry Middleton Kernot, then confirmation is lost to history. If Kernot had not completed an affidavit, admitting to the fact that he had used an alias, would you have then rejected the fact that he had served on the CSS ALABAMA, if he made a statement that he had served, but did not reveal the alias he used?
What I am trying to say is that researchers do not just discard such information, unless they can find absolute proof, as in the case of Haywood, that such service did not occur.
Until you, or someone else can provide such absolute proof that Risien did not serve, I will continue to have the information online. Whether one chooses to believe his service or not is up to each individual. Later research may prove, or disprove his service, if additional information eventually turns up, and hopefully it will. I have already been in contact with a descendant of his, but she was unable to provide anything further.