Echoing Stephan’s concern - I don’t think it would be a fair-to-all solution, as there are associations, where majority of summits are on the border (mountains usually are natural borderlines), so from a perspective of one association it can be questionable - why do we “lose” a given summit, if it belongs to our country and meets the criteria? Some countries will shrink in summits even more (e.g. SP, where we have more stringent rules compared to OK, thus a lot less opportunities for activators, although we do our best to promote the program).
At first glance, my opinion would incline to solution in the database server software = linking the common summits the way, so that activator can activate even both but score for one. That would eliminate the “problem”, and no-one would accuse such an activator of just score-collecting. That would also perhaps be more effort-efficient database reconfiguration versus geographical analysis of a number of associations, not to mention potential conflicts between associations in unclear cases…
Just a thought, perhaps much to discuss… I trust we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater… 