I still have huge problems with this. Given her objectives, doesn't it kind of say she's failed?
Kajsa, if you ever read this, I am not being negative. I don't think you've failed in the slightest. But forgive me for not putting a comment like this in Strava.
Well, it's only a matter of taste whether she's failed on that particular count. On all other counts she's already succeeded and continues to succeed.
What I would imagine will probably happen is that KT will submit a record, and provided it is approved become the record holder. Then AC will submit a record and smash KT's. Meaning that KT will hold the record briefly, and during that time it's a bit of a "lame duck" record as it is doomed to be broken. (I'm ignoring the UMCA/Guinness distinction here to make things easier).
Now you could say that AC becomes the record holder automatically on passing BD's record and that any claim by KT at the end of 2016 should be disallowed because AC is the "record holder presumptive" or something like that. In the interim there is no fixed record, it is whatever AC's running total happens to be at any point in time.
I say a matter of taste rather than a matter of opinion, because as far as I know there are no rules, nor anyone with jurisdiction to make any rules. It's just a matter of how you personally want to view things. If you feel charitably inclined towards KT you can say she holds the record in the interim. if you don't, you say she doesn't. It's more like whether you like sugar in your tea rather than a logical interpretation of any rules.
There are a zillion other way things could pan out and we could possibly end up with the silly situation that KT holds one record and AC simultaneously holds another, much bigger one. Like boxing.
Personally I think we could live without sanctioning bodies altogether. I think they belong to the era of stamped addressed envelopes, men who read the gas meter and phone boxes. Just stick the data in the public domain (say, Strava). There are sufficient competent people out there to check for fraud, and they will do so if the record is sufficiently important. As an outside observer you are free to interpret the data how you wish.