There isn't presently agreement on the answer to this question. In some sentences similar to yours, it is easier to find an answer. Consider, for instance:
(a) A woman has inspired and created a book.
This can have the same meaning as:
(a') A woman has inspired a book and a woman has created a book.
Notice that (a) and (a') can be sentences about more than one woman and more than one book. We wouldn't be able to see this fact if "a woman" and "a book" were replaced with names or definite NPs, because names and definite NPs don't have the right kind of semantics to introduce into the conversation new entities. The fact that (a) can mean (a') motivates a view of (a) that says ellipsis can derive it from (a'). That doesn't mean that (a) can only be derived from (a'). Your example can't be modified in a way that lets us know how it is constructed. Consider
(b) Although a man has inspired and created a book, she need not read it.
If we convert (b) into (b'), we get something anomalous.
(b') Although a man has inspired a book and a man has created a book, he need not read it.
The "although" clause doesn't set things up properly to resolve the meaning of "he' and "it."
