there are some observations where it’s obvious that the organism can’t be found in the circle. for example, https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/152316244 shows a duck in water, and the circle does not incorporate any bodies of water.
however, it is possible to surmise that all the observations with the exact same coordinates and accuracy were recorded using the same method, and i think the proper interpretation here is just that the method used to record the location in these observations is a different method than one that tries to encapsulate the location of the organism within an accuracy circle.
i’ve ranted in other threads that there’s absolutely no consistency in how locations are determined across all observations in the system, and this is just another example of that fact. that said, i would not consider the location of the example duck observation incorrect even if i can say for sure that the duck was nowhere within the accuracy circle. instead, i would say that the location of the duck is correct if you interpret it as falling within the State Park, as defined by the geocoded location of the Park by G Maps. so if i came across these as a researcher, rather than throwing them out entirely, i would just adjust the locations of these observations as needed to make them conform to whatever rules i’m using to determine locations.