The correct response to this question, is that it could not happen.
The only location in which a Challenger type leak could occur is within 10 degrees of the ET attachment. The interaction between the ET attachment and the SRB joint dynamics played a role in the 51L leak. The failure mode requires the locking effect of the ET attachment on the SRB wall.
In Appendix C (https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1appc.htm) a failure mode is setout which ends with the statement:
"If the very tight tang-to-clevis assembly gap did persist to time of launch, it could have resulted in near maximum compression of the O-rings. Such compression, in conjunction with cold temperatures, joint dynamics, and the variable performance of the insulating putty has been shown to have detrimental influences on the joint's ability to seal."
It was 52 days between the stacking error of 12/7/86 and launch. In that time frame the joint would have been subject to movement to the pad, heating and cooling in the Florida sun and the natural tendency of a "tight" joint to move to it's lowest energy state. A flat on flat stack, if missed by the stacking team, would not "persist to time of launch" on any location on the joint where the clevis could move outward and change dimensions. Only if the flat on flat occurred very near the ET attach point, where the clevis would need to move the mass of the external tank to reduce the tight joint could a flat on flat persist to launch. Therefore, a flat on flat stack, which was a necessary part of the 51L failure mode, could only occur within 10 degrees of the ET attachment.
Like most accidents, the failure mode of STS-51L is not simply cold temperature (which was a constant across all O-ring locations) but a unique combination of factors which occur only once and at a single location and are wholly unanticipated.