Some fault conditions (Open PEN) can be imported and affect the genny frame if it has a TNS configuration.
When the DNO PEN goes open under load, the entire earthing system of the building, and anything connected to it, rises to some unknown potential above true earth, and current can be diverted along CPCs and bonding to anything extraneous that is still at true earth potential. If the generator frame is connected to the MET, it will also rise to that potential. I can see an argument that if the genny is the only equipment outside the building's equipotential zone, it might present the greatest shock risk in the event of the MET being elevated above true earth.
But, technically, the differentiating factor as to whether this occurs is not whether the genny supply is TN or IT, it's whether the frame is connected to the MET. With a TN-S connection of the generator, the neutral of the installation is also connected to the MET, with an IT connection it isn't, but this in itself doesn't change the shock risk from the genny frame to true earth.
The permutations are:
IT with genny frame connected: ADS / RCD protection doesn't work, can get shock from frame to true earth with open PEN
IT with genny frame disconnected: ADS / RCD protection doesn't work, won't get shock from frame with open PEN but might from genny leakage
TN with genny frame connected: protection works, can get shock from frame to true earth with open PEN
What are the relative risks of an installation or appliance fault causing a shock risk from the IT configuration, vs. a DNO fault causing a shock risk at the genny from an open PEN condition? As the electrician, whose risks are you tasked with managing? Are you prepared to take responsibility for disabling the additional protection of the installation?