My two cents:
I agree that the term could be ambiguous for multiple reasons:
One: the way in which the term was used (or not used). That is, the debatted term was not used at any other time during the game, whether it be in the set-up, questions, etc. Had the term been linked its appropriate meaning at another point during section, it would have helped clear up the ambiguity.
Two: the wording of the rule. If I remember correctly, the (near-)exact wording of the rule started as "___ and ____ work together
in the same ____". The word "together" helps exacerbate the ambiguity. It is possible for the reader to presume that "working together" meant geographically.
This brings about another point of discussion which I have seen raised here:
Did the game ever say that the interns would be GOING anywhere? To my memory, I cannot recall the game EVER explicitly stating that the interns would be going anywhere. However, that being said, if you remember what the two positions the interns could be working in, one of them only makes sense if they are ON LOCATION.
With all of that in consideration, I'd have to say that those who report the issue to LSAC have a legitimate argument.
Disclaimer: I, myself however, did not interpret the correct incorrectly. The game before it (whose type I had been previously unexposed to) took up so much time, though, that by the time I got to the last game, I only had time to answer the first three questions with any degree of certainty. Therefore, I will not be reporting the issue to LSAC, but only for purely selfish reasons (please do not hate me); if the entire game is stricken from the record, I lose three correct answers and the benefit of the curve