I would urge that instead of looking at this in terms of ‘how can we
fix the Montague problem’ lets look at this much more fundamentally.
The Montague example shows that year after year of elaborating the
scoring formula has resulted in a mess.

It is time to step way back and start over. Let’s get rid of the
alphabet soup that now exists in the rules for scoring. All (or at
least most) of the accumulated complications in the rules were
undoubtedly made in the interest of improving fairness. Yet at the
most elemental level it is really unfair to be using a set of scoring
formulas that cannot be comprehended by an intellectually
sophisticated competitor who applies reasonable diligence in studying
the rules. That is what we have now. It is especially irksome that
competitors should put up with the unnecessary complication and still
not have a scoring system that produces reasonable results.

So here’s a simple proposal to get this discussion going in the right
direction: Let’s give 500 points for speed and 500 points for
distance. Period. Speed points are proportioned to the fastest
finisher’s speed; if you don’t finish you get zero speed points.
Distance points are proportioned to the best distance achieved.

Yes, on TAT and MAT style tasks, my formula would change the game plan
a bit. It would introduce an objective to go forth and fly far (like
OLC) as well as fast. Wouldn’t that be fun?