Secondary assignments to space should not count towards the occupancy

Currently IBM TRIRIGA indicates “A person or asset might be associated to only one primary location or space, but might be associated to many secondary locations or spaces.” When IBM TRIRIGA assigns a person to a secondary location, it also adds it to the occupancy of the floor/building. We feel this is a mistake because the occupancy of the floor/building will be inflated. A person can only be in one place at a time and when he has a primary location, regardless of the number of secondary locations he/she may have, he/she should only be counted at their primary location. Secondary locations are temporary locations and when needed for someone's primary location, they would be leaving unless the primary person will be sharing it. Our main issue is from view the Occupancy Graphic. When a person is placed in a secondary location and counted towards the occupancy, the space shows up as occupied. When this happens our facility strategists don't know that this space is actually available. The space should show as vacant until a primary occupant is placed in it. Our labels show the difference between a primary occupant and a secondary occupant by a different color, but that is not always as obvious as the color of the space. We think this should be corrected in IBM TRIRIGA.
Also from a reporting perspective, it skews the Remaining Vacant calculation. This makes it difficult to determine what is actually available on a floor/building/property. When we have discrepancies between the graphic, reporting numbers, and people assigned this causes the validity of data in IBM TRIRIGA to be in question.