Clubs have to collect and remit from every member that they want on the BCWF list that apportions votes to the club. The club is free to give a different membership to a lifetime member that does not include a payment to BCWF, but the club has to accept that it will be doing a little extra work by adding some sort of additional membership class and may be missing out on one extra vote at the AGM if the lifetime member is at the 100/101 threshold (or the 200/201, 500/501, etc).
The BCWF does not say the issue is anyone's fault. The BCWF leadership, again, for about the third time, introduced a measure that would make it easier to satisfy members like yourself without going through a whole constitutional amendment. Members voted that resolution down. Your fellow members, not the BCWF leadership, did not seem to think this needed to be addressed.
There is not, as far as I understand, in fact a method that will fix your concern aside from the very time consuming comparison of multiple reports in multiple formats from multiple sources by staff who already say they are over-tasked. The comparison idea was the very first one I explored long ago when one of my own club members brought the issue to me. It is not simple, it is not easy and we do not have the means or wherewithal to do it unless we sacrifice other work.
It's nobody's fault. It's a bug in the structure of the BCWF constitution and local club constitutions and the bug is triggered when a member buys two different products from two different vendors. It was never planned and it's not easy to fix.