In the blog post The Euler-Maclaurin formula, Bernoulli numbers, the zeta function, and real-variable analytic continuation, Terry Tao looks at the commonly-cranked 'absurd' formulae $$\begin{align} \sum_{n \geq 1} 1 &= -1/2 \tag{1} \\ \sum_{n \geq 1} n &= -1/12 \tag{2}, \end{align}$$ where of course I do not intend these to be taken literally. These are the correct values if we interpret the left sums as $\zeta(0)$ and $\zeta(-1)$, extended through analytic continuation. But one of the big points of Terry Tao's blog post is to show that one can approach $(1)$ and $(2)$ from a completely real-variable method involving smoothed sums.
Let $\eta: \mathbb{R}^+ \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be a smooth, compactly supported, bounded cutoff function which is $1$ in a neighborhood of $0$. Corresponding to $(1)$ and $(2)$ are $$\begin{align} \sum_{n \geq 1} 1 \cdot \eta(n/N) &= -\frac{1}{2} + C_{\eta, 0} N + O\big(\frac{1}{N}\big) \tag{3} \\ \sum_{n \geq 1} n \cdot \eta(n/N) &= - \frac{1}{12} + C_{\eta, 1} N^2 + O\big(\frac{1}{N}\big), \tag{4} \end{align}$$ where $$ \zeta_{\eta, j} = \int_0^\infty x^j \eta(x) dx.$$
In the blog post, Exercise 2 concerns resolving an 'apparent inconsistency' in $(1)$ and $(2)$. Adding $(1)$ and $(2)$ (formally) shows that $\sum_{n \geq 1} (1+n) = -7/12$. Subtracting the integer $1$ from $(2)$ shows (formally) that $\sum_{n \geq 2} n = \sum_{n \geq 1} (1+n) = -13/12$. Working with the smoothed sums, adding $(3)$ and $(4)$ shows that $$ \sum_{n \geq 1} (1+n) \eta(n/N) = -\frac{7}{12} + C_{\eta, 1} N^2 + C_{\eta, 0}N + O\big( \frac{1}{N} \big). \tag{5}$$ Subtracting $1$ (or rather $\eta(1/N)$, which is $1 + O(1/N)$ from a Taylor expansion) from $(4)$ shows that $$ \sum_{n \geq 2} n \eta(n/N) = \sum_{n \geq 1} (1+n) \eta\big( \frac{n+1}{N} \big) = -\frac{13}{12} + C_{\eta, 1} N^2 + O\big( \frac{1}{N} \big). \tag{6}$$ We see that the difference between $(5)$ and $(6)$ is entirely in the smoothing function $\eta(n/N)$ vs $\eta( \frac{n+1}{N} )$, and this is not apparent in the "formal" manipulation leading to the apparent inconsistency.
My Question
In his post, Terry Tao puts as Exercise 2 that one can use $(3)$ and the Taylor expansion for $\eta(\frac{n+1}{N})$ to derive $(6)$ from $(5)$. (Thus these are not only consistent but essentially equivalent). But I don't see how to do this.
Initial thoughts towards a solution
There are two ways that seem natural to expand $\eta$ in a Taylor series. We could use an expansion centered at $0$, leading to expressions of the form $$ \eta\left( \frac{n+1}{N} \right) = 1 + \eta'(0) \left( \frac{n+1}{N} \right) + \frac{\eta''(c)}{2} \left( \frac{n+1}{N} \right)^2, \qquad c \in (0, \tfrac{n+1}{N})$$ or perhaps several expansions centered at $n/N$, leading to expressions of the form $$ \eta \left( \frac{n+1}{N} \right) = \eta \left( \frac{n}{N} \right) + \eta' \left( \frac{n}{N} \right) \frac{1}{N} + \eta''(c) \frac{1}{N^2}, \qquad c \in (\tfrac{n}{N}, \tfrac{n+1}{N}).$$ The expansions centered at $n/N$ have many advantages. In the earlier Exercise 1 in the blog post, using Taylor expansions centered at $n/N$ led to an easy solution, so I suspect that this is the way to proceed. Further, as $\eta$ is compactly supported, we have $\eta''(c) = 0$ for large $c$.
But using this Taylor expansion in the series in $(6)$, we find $$ \sum_{n \geq 1} (1+n) \eta \left( \frac{n+1}{N} \right) = \sum_{n \geq 1} (1+n) \Big[ \eta \left( \frac{n}{N} \right) + \eta' \left( \frac{n}{N} \right) \frac{1}{N} + \eta''(c_n) \frac{1}{N^2}\Big].$$ The first terms $$ \sum_{n \geq 1} (1+n) \eta \left( \frac{n}{N} \right)$$ are understood from $(3)$ and $(4)$ above. The error term summands are each $O(1/N)$, leading to an error term of size $O(1)$. (This indicates that one should use probably use one more term in the Taylor expansion, but that's not what I find to be the obstacle). The secondary term is what I find confusing. We want to understand $$ \sum_{n \geq 1} \frac{(1+n)}{N} \eta' \left( \frac{n}{N} \right),$$ but how are we to do this? I suspect there is either not much more to this line of thought, or a different line of thought is necessary.