Yes, that must be the likely explanation for those very few hits, thank you very much for realizing it (because I was quite at a loss).
I will read the topic you mention, though it looks quite hard to follow at first sight ! In any case, my proposal does require that the “disagree label” remains the same, whatever happens to the ID it disagrees with (whether it is withdrawn, deleted, or changed back and forth…).
Why and by what mechanism should it change ?!
Only the category should be susceptible to change with changing IDs (from improving to leading or maverick etc).
Improving IDs are easily obtained by any middle-level expert, provided that there is a continuously large number of new observations by users who are less or not expert at all, as the latter usually do not venture into providing very specific IDs. This makes it simple for middle-level experts to easily accumulate improving IDs. .
Now there is a trade-off between accumulating easy IDs and trying to address difficult IDs. So middle-level experts get carried away in their happy run…, ending up with quite many mistakes. It is for the top experts to do the cleaning…, which starts by disagreeing and, if justified, associates with the improving label.
I mean that the number of “easy” improving IDs is overwhelming relative to the “hard” improving IDs, yet the latter need to be emphasized. The disagree-label seems a simple way to do this.
And it is not necessarily a matter of being top vs middle experts, but of being more or less attentive and careful. Yet it does seem to me that being top goes with being attentive…