That’s because you are still thinking in terms of funding companies, rather than projects. The point of this program is to fund projects, not companies. If your project is better than 3 other projects, it should get 3 points (not 7 - not sure where that figure is from). If a company is on the cutoff, only their strongest projects should get funded, in preference to their weaker ones.
To be clear, there’s no “splitting votes” in Copeland. If you offer two budgets and all your voters rank them adjacent to each other, the end result is the same as if you’d just offered one budget - except if you end up right on the cutoff, in which case you’d get one project funded instead of nothing.
The results are different if someone ranks other providers’ budgets in between two of your own proposals - but this is as intended, it’s allowing the voter to express their preference between proposals across different candidates. You could bundle them together into one proposal, but in that case you’re making the gamble that the voter wants your more popular project enough to overcome the additional cost of the combined budget. In reality you should expect that a single proposal for $x+$y will rank lower than the better of $x or $y alone.