Regardless of what is decided or implemented, thank you to the admins and the board for considering the idea, and thanks all for their input.
I do think the simpler the algorithm, the simpler it will be to understand and accept. No solution will satisfy everyone, and complexity in this case may cause confusion. I do think that points should roughly reflect value, but I also think that a way of the ignoring temporary spikes of "hot, then not" may need to be considered. I'm also not sure I like the idea of capping the scores. I admit to having lots of books that hold relatively low point scores and might benefit if somebody else's were capped, but I also have some of those "grails" and would most likely cry foul if someone tried to have them clipped.
The fact that #1's and other key issues are priced, and have point values, beyond what seems reasonable or realistic is just the way it is. We all have to live with the supply and demand aspect of the hobby.
From a technical perspective it strikes me as relatively easy to add the additional columns and calculations, but I fully admit I have no clue as to the implementation details or server environments behind it all.
Another idea would be to simply say that a set must be at least x% complete before being considered for registry award ranking. I'm not sure what value is appropriate for "x", but something that would generally eliminate sets of "one or two".