Not sure I’m quite on board with the logic here. When I add an ID to an observation, I’m saying what I believe that organism to be (to the lowest rank the evidence allows me). And, if it happens to disagree with another ID already present, I am additionally saying either “it’s not that” or “I can’t tell if it’s that” – my option.
I leave it to iNaturalist to decide what the observation “should be identified as” based on the collection of IDs present. All I am contributing is my opinion that “this is X.” (And am, of course, open to persuasion via evidence that I am wrong, and it’s actually Y.)
A distinction without a difference? Maybe. I guess the point being that my first reason to ID is not to push the consensus in a particular direction. It might or might not have that effect. It’s just to add my opinion as to what the organism is (often with a comment as to the evidence I am seeing).