This discussion seems to be retreading a lot of ground that has been covered in other forum posts. Some examples that folks may want to check through:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/wild-vs-captive-cultivated-gray-areas/39882
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/is-my-cat-wild/46528
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/how-to-mark-escaped-free-roaming-pets/44914
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/a-few-captive-cultivated-edge-cases/4380
though there are many more.
One thread/trend that comes from those discussions is that for some animals, it can be very difficult to definitely ascertain whether they/their observations should be wild/not wild by iNat’s definitions. Cats are a frequent species to generate these situations, but not exclusively. Norms about pet ownership vary greatly throughout the world - in many places, pets dogs are allowed to roam as cats (though this is much less true in US+Canada). In general, according to iNat’s definitions, a somewhat free-roaming pet would not be considered wild. That is, if a pet is still based out of a home, often sleeps there, receives food there, is given veterinary care, etc., it is not generally considered to be wild even if it patrols an area around its home for some of its time.
A good hypothetical question to ask might be “If this animal’s caretaker moved, would they take the animal with them?” If that’s the case, a human is determining when and where the organism can be and they wouldn’t be wild. If the animal is not enough of a “pet” that they would move with their caretaker, we might consider them wild.
For instance, there might be situations, such as a “barn cat” that lives/hunts in a human-built barn near a house, but recruited itself to the barn, and receives no specific care from humans, which would better be considered “wild” on iNat.
Of course, it can be very difficult to ascertain some of these criteria/differentiate between these situations based solely on photographic evidence, as many of the comments on this and other threads point out. One other fairly consensus point that comes out of all of these threads is that the original observer is generally best positioned to determine whether a given organism is wild or not, as they often have more context than is in the photo alone (how did the animal behave?, have they seen it previously and know it to be a pet in their neighborhood?, did they see a human interacting with the animal as though it were a pet?, etc.). If the observer has made a specific determination about wild/not wild for an observation that appears to be in a gray area, it’s probably best to respect that and give the observer the benefit of the doubt unless it is clear that they are making a mistake in applying iNat’s guidelines.