Divergence and convergence during a turn should be dependant on what the original intent is. If it is to make a parallel turn then either behavior is contrary to the intent. Parallel skis corresponds to many other parallels in body behavior. Parallel shins, parallels between the lower leg and the spine, Hips and shoulders parallel to the slope of the hill. If we intend to do one thing and something different happens then we didn't accomplish the task we set out to do. Very often one or more parallels of body behavior is missing the mark and the result is being unable to control the inside ski to the degree of precision required to make a parallel turn.
Intending to make perfectly parallel tracks is a waste of time because it represents unbalanced, crappy skiing, based on the fact that the skier had to manipulate their stance and in doing so severely sacrificed their balance which will ultimately inhibit their ability to make well balanced high performance turns (high edge angle, high speed, short radius). You can't pull that off with the inputs you are talking about.
Parallels are not missing at all when you really dig into the matter. You're probably already thinking about countering back with "oh but that means you're a-framing..." The reality is - probably not to the degree that it is detrimental to the turn. If the tracks diverge and converge, the radii are probably pretty similar - meaning both skis are working the same (or very similar) radius - versus the scenario that you are talking about. Check out the diagram below (ignore the CM paths for now), and look at the tracks of the bottom scenario at the apex versus the two top scenarios - the two radii at the apexes are quite different - wouldn't you say? The divergent tracks actually have a radius that is very close to being the same at the apex... do you think that this might suggest equal edge angles?
In your suggested scenario the inside ski is on a much tighter radius than the outside ski... but at the same edge angle? So you must be actively keeping it on that path, and it sure as hell isn't carving a tighter arc since (hopefully) the majority of your weight is going to be on the outside ski. That means it is either being extensively steered/rotated into that arc or you are skiing bow legged in order to put it at a high edge angle. Active inside half does not just apply to keeping the inside ski from running away from you, but also applies to using the necessary amount of inside leg flexion (that'd be vertical separation for those not following) as needed by the turn so you are not weighting the inside ski.
Diagram: (click to enlarge) (ignore the suggested CM path because based on the conversation so far that is going to be way too hard to get into)
The only way you're going to get the intent argument on this one is if your intent is to make a terrible unbalanced turn. I can't believe there are people here that still do not understand the basics of stance and its effect on track width... who are still describing a ski turn based on track width. Incredible. The evidence here is overwhelming and I'd prefer to not have to repeat it all again, so please re-read from the beginning until something clicks.