Further more, while it is still a somewhat controversial topic, a large number of foreign academic sources consider that Romanians were present on this lands in early Middle Ages, but it is very clear that you do not use academic sources, otherwise you would not support the inclusion of the town Galatsi (Galati) on a map from 10th century.
And third, while Gesta Hungarorum is not exactly the most excellent source, it is nonetheless among the very few such sources for that period. And that makes it a much better and credible source than your sorely evident lack of historical knowledge concerning that period. Even more, Gesta was not the only source I used, the other being Constantine Porphyrogenitus' De Administratio.
I think that your idea is very good, although I would have a few things to comment. I don't think that it would be ideal to merge provinces in Wallachia to provinces from Transilvania or Bulgaria. The reason is the fact that by 10th century, Wallcahia and Southern Moldova are included in the area of Pecheneg, later Cuman domination. As such, I suggest dividing Wallachia in 2 provinces: an Eastern one with the center at Urscia (as a variant to Chernts/Severin) and an Western one centered around Krakna (near nowadays Galati), a town mentioned by Constantine Porphyrogenitus"F.e. in the case of Bulgaria, many of those Transdanubian provinces can freely be united and that would even make much more historical sense, considering they were lower populated and much less urbanistic. Some examples the way I see it - Craiova should go to "Drobeta" (Chernets was my suggestion, IIRC), Bucuresti can go to Nikopol, Buzau to Fagaras, Campulung to Belograd etc. That way we can have less provinces for Bulgaria, depict that Transdanubian Bulgaria was less populated (which is why Krum and the other Bulgarian rulers always relocated the Byzantine captives to live there) and get rid of some settlements which probably didn't exist back then (or at least with those names)."
You are right, Campulung was founded slightly before 1300, Brasov was founded by late 12th century, Ramnic (Valcea) was first mentioned in 1386, while archaeological diggings founded remains of a voievodal court at Arges from around 1200. The most important archaeological evidences from 9-10th centuries were uncovered at Dridu, as well as Slon-Cerasu, where a stone fortress was discovered, which was considered as being used to control the salt road that connected Transylvanian salt mines to Bulgaria.As I've said before, I'm not too familiar with these territories, but I think some of those locations might fit better than some of the current ones - f.e. Campulung seems to have been founded later on, so maybe it could be replaced with something else, like Rimnik, Brashov or something else (Wiki says Arges was probably founded later on too). Some others I think are rather important in Western Romania are Bihar and Turda (though Turda is too close to Belograd/Alba Julia). And if we include Maroshvar (modern Chenad), maybe it would be better to call it Morisena."
Further, I would suggest merging Daboka and Fagaras with the Beograd ( maybe Belgrad/Balgrad)province, due to the fact that the latter town was pretty much the only major town in the area.