Reading through these and reviewing some sightings posted by user honoralana, I have come across a problem.
How is a drawing done from memory at home any better evidence than just going home and taking a photo out of a field guide or online and saying “this looks like what I saw”?
A drawing is no better evidence than a detailed description of what I saw. Even if the drawing is excellent, the quality of the drawing is more a representation of the person artistic abilities than stronger evidence of the actual sighting.
In both cases you are removing yourself from the actual observation and relying on memory to match / recreate the observation. I don’t think it should pass the criteria of “evidence of organism”. It is evidence of memory of the organism, not evidence of the organism.
In previous disccussion, many were quick to make the comparison to the great biological illustrators through history (Audubon, Gould, etc) but those people were making illustrations to demonstrate the characteristics of a species or population. They were not submitting those drawings as evidence that they had seen that individual. Drawings as iNat vouchers are a very different thing.