I too think that “location is not accurate” will be the right attribute, since the organism has been dislocated from its natural habitat before I get the chance to take a pic in the museum. It is a fact that many specimens shown in museums have never been held in captivity, but were captured/collected from their natural habitat where they lived a wild life. Since dead specimens are not “held (in captivity)”, I did not “observe them in captivity” when looking at them in a museum. Imo.
In that regard there is a difference in the meaning of the words “captive” versus “captured”. The first word means “held in captivity”, the second word means “taken from the wild”. Also imo.
In general this is something I encountered a few times already: while there may be a broad consensus that a given observation should be marked as “casual”, in order to do so there will be a discussion on the right attribution. I encountered an identifier who responded that he never cares about the “philosophical implications” of different attributions as long as a casual observation is marked as “casual”. ;)