Just wondering how others allocate records to VCs in R6.

I have a moth record which has a 1km grid square attached. The grid square is 90% in one VC (74) and 10% in another (73). I have preferred to derive VCs from grid refs - I usually just use the largest area of overlap as the record VC, or for six-figure refs or less allocate the VC based on the centroid.

Except this record causes me a problem in that it is from a published source that states it was in the 10% VC - a new VC record and to date the only VC record for that species. This is where the derived approach falls down, as the species is excluded from the VC74 list as this record would be allocated to the VC73 with largest overlap. Hmm...

I'm left with the alternative approach of storing the VC for the record in R6, either by linking to an administrative area directly for each sample or by assigning a VC via location.However I don't use the location hierarchy for every record (preferring to use just location name for many, particularly those imported from external sources such as national schemes, iRecord etc.) so allocating locations for every record would require a major change of approach.

So just wondering how others approach this? I'm expecting that many use the location hierarchy so I'm probably not going to like what I hear...