Hi Quentin,
that wouldn't work as there are records for T. cespitosum s.s. within 'T. cespitosum (L.) Hartm.. To illustrate what has gone on with records I have responsibility for (MapMate Centres 2dd and 4qq), I have summarised records for Trichophorum in these copies of MapMate, and how they are held within the DDb.

NB Neither copy of MapMate has been updated to Stace 3 names. It is heartening that there is an exact match between the number of records in MapMate and the DDb. Hybrids are correct in the DDb. T. cespitosum s.s., which in my copies of MapMate are entered as subsp. cespitosum are placed within T. cespitosum (L.) Hartm. in the DDb. This is ok, but there are thousands of other records also under this name which are not this species. All my records for T. cespitosum s.l. (entered as T. cespitosum in MapMate) have been allocated to T. germanicum. This is incorrect, but raises a different question.
I suggest that all records be allocated to T. cespitosum s.l. / agg., unless the source record clearly allocates the record to one of the individual species or hybrid, and that that is believable. Records for T. cespitosum prior to Swan's paper in Watsonia, except those determined by him, should be allocated to the agg. taxon. I don't know what options there are for data entry in the most up to date MapMate species dictionary, but if it lacks an option for entering records as the agg. taxon, then confusion may continue.
The problem here is clearly the direct result of a nomenclatural change (latest sedges handbook and Stace 3), that serves taxonomists, but not the users of names. Hopefully existing records can all be sorted out, but there will probably be a need to check all new records for Trichophorum as they are added to the DDb.
Andy.