This observation should have a community taxon of Papilio rumiko, but is instead at genus level because of my disagreement with the since-withdrawn ID of Papilio cresphontes:
i think the system is working as designed in this situation. i believe you didn’t disagree with the previous identifier’s ID. instead, you disagreed with the community taxon that existed just before your ID. so even when a specific prior identifier’s ID goes away, there’s no mechanism to also remove your disagreement, because these things are not linked.
to get the correct ID on the observation, just withdraw your ID. optionally, you could add the genus level ID afterward without a disagreement.
read more about disagreements here: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/change-wording-used-by-the-system-when-downgrading-an-observation-to-an-higher-level-taxa/3862/60.
Reading this thread makes my head hurt!
you disagreed with the community taxon that existed just before your ID. so even when a specific prior identifier’s ID goes away, there’s no mechanism to also remove your disagreement, because these things are not linked.
You’re correct; my initial post conflated the two. What I really mean is: Ancestor disagreement persists after IDs which led to disputed community taxon are withdrawn (or more generally Ancestor disagreement persists after disputed community taxon is revised).
I typed a bunch here about trying to start a conversation about this specific mechanic vs. the disagree feature as a whole, but I suppose in the end it is indeed a semantic argument with the text of the orange disagree button (“No, but it is a member of…”), so if this thread should be lumped in with the one you linked, that’s fine.
As long as I’m here, though, the behavior I think makes sense would be for an orange disagreement to be relative, applicable only to the community taxon at the time the disagreement is made and any other intermediate taxa between that community taxon and the taxon suggested along with the disagreement. I’m sure there is a case for a different interpretation of the button text in the linked thread, though; maybe I’ll go slog through it now and try to find one.
the thread that i noted earlier contemplates creating 2 types of explicit disagreements. “branch” disagreement would be similar to the way it works now, in which the disagreement applies to anything below your ID. “leading” disagreement would apply to only the disagreed upon taxon (the community taxon at the time of your ID). it looks like they changed the code to do this, but i think that new functionality is only available to selected people (staff) to beta test right now.
i think this could be unpredictable if there are several ranks between your ID and the community taxon prior to your ID. so i think the proposed “branch” and “leading” disagreement mechanisms are the better ways to do it.
(i think there are potentially better ways to handle explicit disagreements, if they can be separated from identifications, but i don’t think that’s being contemplated right now for simplicity.)