In reply to profitofdoom:
> The source quoted in this thread says the following about the Summit Zones of Tolerance approach - "in which a certain amount of fudging is permissible"
OK. So, I need to disclose that I am part of the group that has been researching, compiling, analysing, discussing and communicating about this for several years now. It's a serious mess.
I agree about fudging, it's a slippery slope and the concept involved is probably not best expressed in that bit you quoted. It's a bit more particular than that.
It's mainly for Manaslu, Annapurna and Dhaulagiri, and you can read all that in those dossiers linked above at the 8000ers site. For Shishapangma and Broad Peak, it's pretty much now accepted that only going to the Central Peak and Forepeak, respectively, does not count as summiting those peaks (and climbers and 8000m collectors have voted in agreement with their feet and returned to finish the job if they'd previously stopped short).
For Everest, nobody counts the South Summit as the summit (though it's been tried) and the issue with Kanch is known about. In fact many climbers have been right to the top of Kanch for years, deities be damned, but a few metres of easy flat ground out of respect is not going to rule anyone out. Thirty horizontal metres and several vertical metres away, as with the Ms. Oh saga, judged by Ms. Hawley, will rule you out - a point worth noting for defenders of Manaslu pikers.
There is an issue with Makalu, with some climbers stopping at one of the little tops on the summit ridge, probably an honest mistake - though most have managed to not make that mistake. Some of the main Sherpas have been a bit confused about this one, but nothing compared to...
Annapurna. Geez :-/ There are two summits maybe, two points that seem to be almost exact in height and one, or two(?) more that are just a couple of metres (more?) lower. Then there's another three or four points, including the junction of ridges at the NW end.
This has all been realised by a) new satellite data, and b) a very instructive panorama shot of the summit ridge taken by (I think) a Spanish TV crew in a helo a few years back. Some very (very) famous people have not been to the summit of Annapurna. I'm reluctant to even mention their names here, but they definitely were not on the main summit(s). Apparently, as we've learned, some people have known about this for years.
So the issue of the TZ is a retroactive amnesty. To say "Look [Famous Dude] we assume you weren't lying or stupid and just assume that for whatever reason you didn't know about where an alternative top was, or you couldn't see it in the bad weather, or there was a lot of snow that year, or ....whatever."
So nearly all the existing summit claims since 1950 are 'officially accepted' and no mass re-writing of Himalayan 8000m climbing is needed. Personally, I would not want to do that anyway.
But for the future? It has not been decided, but right now I hope any TZ will be historical/retro only - not going forward from this(?) point onward.
Now everyone knows where the highest point is, they should go there. End of.