[ ] Another silly collab question

If we've established a band given one party of the collab (Tony) has no prior independent releases:

Tony Levin · Paul Dunmall

Can that pair create more bands later when they collaborate with other parties who do have prior releases (with the original pair's names side by side and in the same order)?

Tony Levin · Paul Dunmall · Paul Rogers
Tony Levin / Paul Dunmall / John Edwards
Philip Gibbs · Paul Rogers · Tony Levin · Paul Dunmall
Tony Levin / Paul Dunmall / Johannes Bauer / Paul Rogers

The added collaborators all have prior solo, including Bauer on a 2002 compilation. Is there a way to rule that Levin is still acting in a solo capacity? Or do they become non-connective collabs, equivalent to something like:

Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds · Paul Rogers
Jello Biafra & The Guantanamo School Of Medicine · Paul Rogers

Could those become bands too if they were billed uniformly, eg. if The Bad Seeds (who have no independent releases) were listed on their own line and not shown to belong to Cave:

• Nick Cave
• The Bad Seeds
• Paul Rogers

Let's not overcomplicate things. My view is that Tony Levin · Paul Dunmall · Paul Rogers should be a 3-way collab between "Tony Levin", "Paul Dunmall" and "Paul Rogers", each treated as a solo artist. Making it a 2-way collab between "Tony Levin · Paul Dunmall" and "Paul Rogers" just seems like an over-adherence to the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is to allow first-time collabers to be treated as a band purely to allow artists to get into the database who otherwise may not have a chance.

Yeah, I see nothing wrong in saying it's common sense that the band 'Tony Levin · Paul Dunmall' has nothing to do with the later releases. I just wonder if there's a good way to adjust the letter of the law to back that up. Maybe a mention of collabs in the 'More Equal' rule.