I would only like to point out that the idea of the taxon and its identification as something objective and unambiguous (which I sometimes encounter among not only amateur naturalists, but also experts) is partly false. Certainly, scientific taxonomy is always based on objective facts (otherwise it would not be scientific). But the set of facts available to us is always limited, and their interpretation may be different. Therefore, the scientific concept of a taxon itself can be a matter of consensus in the scientific community.
For example, the taxon Megacopta punctatissima has 130 RG observations. But the authors of the Catalogue of Palaearctic Heteroptera are of the opinion that it is only a junior synonym of M. cribraria. Is M. punctatissima an “RG taxon”?
In fact, any identification (regardless of the number of confirmations, including by experts) may be false. Scientific taxonomy is created, in essence, by the same people, and errare humanum est (perseverare diabolicum ).
Therefore, making any precise gradation of the “quality” of identification seems to me an unlikely task. Regardless of whether there are 2, 3, or, for example, 10 categories. There will always be uncertain “gray areas” and variability within the categories.
The existing category “Research Grade” is a rather clearly defined entity, a well-known and widely used term. Even if its name does not quite capture its essence and may be misleading, I would be extremely cautious about changing it. Any change of such a term (used by millions of people) can have serious and not always predictable effects.
As for increasing the number of identifications needed to achieve RG, I will only repeat myself and agree with my colleagues’ opinion - “we don’t have so many experts”. That is, this would automatically take numerous quite reliably identified observations out of this category. And it may reduce the motivation of identifiers because qualitative improvement of the data (their transition to a “higher” category) in many groups of organisms will become unattainable.
In addition, I think it is important not to forget that any change in the RG category will affect the iNaturalist Research-grade Observations dataset in GBIF. Many of the data in this dataset are already in use by researchers. Consequently, such changes would also affect their work and its results. It seems to me that really serious reasons are needed to consider this an acceptable risk.