This. It might be one of the exceptions where it is IDable. Or the observation may turn out to be of something different altogether and thus a genus ID would not be the correct action. Or there may be other things that need addressing. All of this will get missed by mass IDing.
I think staff have been pretty firmly against tools that would allow for identifying/annotating observations en masse without looking at the individual observations. I agree that it can feel tedious to do the same thing over and over when 95% of the time one particular action is needed. But what about that last 5% (which my experience suggests often includes the most interesting observations)? And one could argue that it is equally tedious to add hundreds of agreeing IDs to common and easy-to-ID species, yet this does not seem to discourage users from doing so.
The whole point of requiring 2 IDs for RG is to (ideally) ensure that the observation has been looked at by at least one other person and reduce the likelihood of errors. This no longer happens if people are using a tool to enter IDs automatically instead.