i think only staff can change “standard” places.
it may be worth stepping back a bit to look a more carefully at this cascading issue. can you provide examples of taxa where establishment means were cascaded improperly? from my perspective, it seems like this should be a relatively uncommon occurrence, since i think it would take a particular set of conditions and steps to create such a case.
for example, Metrosideros polymorpha is endemic to Hawaii, one of the 50 states of the United States. Hawaii is technically in Oceania according to the boundaries used by iNat, but the parent of the United States according to the place setup is North America. so M. polymorpha should exist in the Hawaii, US, and Oceania checklists, but it should not exist in the North America checklist. right now, the plant is listed as endemic in both Hawaii and the US, but it is undefined in Oceania. i suppose someone could define it as endemic to Oceania if they really wanted to, but i sort of doubt anyone would ever actually do something like that, since it’s unnecessary.
now suppose someone observed an introduced patch in Veracruz, MX. then that would cause the taxon to be added to Veracruz, Mexico, and North America checklists. at that point, i think a curator could define the taxon as introduced in North America and have that cascade to Mexico and Veracruz. since the taxon is already defined as endemic in the US, the introduced cascade would not affect the US, if my understanding of the process is correct. but if the taxon had not already been defined as endemic in the US, then the introduced cascade would have set the taxon as introduced in the US as well.
when i look at that hypothetical cascade, i sort of think it it would have been the responsibility of the curator who defined the taxon as introduced in North America to have made sure that the US was properly set to endemic first before cascading at the continent level.
now, if the taxon had not been set up as endemic in Hawaii either, then i think what you’re saying is that cascading introduced from North America would have set Hawaii to introduced as well (since Hawaii’s parent is the US and the US’s parent is North America). maybe this would be a little unexpected, but i sort of think that a curator probably shouldn’t have started the process by cascading from North America. it seems like you should define the native area at a more detailed level before applying a very broad (exception=introduced) continent-level establishment means.
suppose that instead of finding the taxon in Mexico, you found it on Tuvalu and determined that it was native there, too. also suppose that the taxon was not already defined as endemic anywhere. so then i suppose in this case you might be tempted to start at Oceania and try to cascade native status down to both Tuvalu and Hawaii, except it wouldn’t cascade to Hawaii because Hawaii’s parent is the US. i suppose the way i would look at it in this case is that it’s inconvenient that i wouldn’t be able to cascade to Hawaii, but i could still go in and set the appropriate status for Hawaii separately.
(i’m not sure all of the above is actually the correct process, since i’ve never actually done it before… feel free to correct me if any of the above is incorrect.)