First, sorry for the wall of text, but answering to three different points (which all require at least a minimum of complexity to do them justice) can easily lead to that :).
Regarding @Simon’s post: think it might make sense to have a public list of all the problems that exist with words for each language, according to @Simon and others (in a read-only Google doc curated by someone, for example), and then to choose a suitable way to solve those.
Such first a stage of problem collection, with everybody listing all the problems they see with their own language set of words (publicly, not in private messages), would also ensure a kind of a “peer review” of supposed problems by other athletes of the same language, for example. Of course, this only works if people list general problems like “bad translations” and not every single case of a bad translation.
Notwithstanding that, my opinions regarding the options given by Simon Orton:
Reg. no 1: “De-coupling” the sets seems like a step back. Translations are in general the best way to ensure equality in my opinion and that should only be discarded if any option to make that work cannot solve potential problems sufficiently.
Reg no. 2: I would be very much in favor of only one form per category if there exist multiple ones, in a clearly defined way. It would require input from at least one person for each language, of course, and/or from a very gifted linguist like Nathalie if nobody steps forward for a language, to know what needs to be changed. It is undoubtedly a huge advantage if there is only one form of a noun, verb or adjective in one language and multiple ones in another and that should be remedied.
Regarding what Andrea mentioned: I had not thought of the fact that in some languages the infinitive form and a noun are with some degree of frequency identical. Have not checked how often that is the case in the concrete example. A (slightly heretical) question: might it be at least a hypothetical option to have two words like “to jump” in a language that needs a modifier to indicate verb forms? In the end, it would not be the same as people needing to learn “house wood” or “hand tree” in one cell, but the “only” additional task would be the requirement to memorize that it is a verb and not a noun, a task well-known in other languages.
If that is a total no-go by way of public opinion, also fine, of course, but it would only make it a tiny bit longer to read (two letters …) and would on the other hand remedy the supposed problem (if it is a problem: would be very interesting to hear the experience of athletes who memorize in English: maybe it could even also have disadvantages like taking a bit longer before being able to form a clear image because you first need to decide whether it is a noun or a verb). Doing it like that would also not lead to a complete weakening of the “one word principle” if it is a very narrowly defined exception. One way why that might not be feasible could be that it might require two word cells in many other cases, although I do not see those at the moment apart from the narrow scope of a word/noun identity.
This is just an example and it shows that there might be many more which will need discussion.
Reg no. 3: I do not think it is necessary that people send in their own word list. As long as the translations across disciplines are done well, it should be ok. People sending in their words might lead to an advantage for those sending the words in because they know the list and others don’t, for example. Making the lists public to counter that also seems like a bad solution because that then leads to everybody learning their whole list, which would make it a different discipline. All in all, leads to more problems than it would solve, in my opinion.
As a general note, I think if people have proposals, they should be posted here, in public. And if proposals are sent to Simon Orton in private nonetheless, they should be posted here, too, so that everybody can take a look. Hard to see another solution to keep the process transparent.
Great that we are tackling this topic 
.
