The issue with this is that there are people who do dissect invertebrates and look at things under a miscroscope etc. and take photos and post them on iNat. So while the majority of observations can’t be identified to species, some can.
This was the case with Eupeodes americanus - there were hundreds of observations identified as it, but there is another species in the same genus that looks identical, and other species in other genera that look extremely similar. So E. americanus was a good guess, and probably correct for many, but there was no way to tell. Now all of those observations have been moved to subgenus level or to other genera where appropriate, but there are still 3 good observations because a couple dedicated observers were willing to put in the effort and capture one and get the necessary photos.
The best available solution is that everyone is careful and researches before identifying, and identifies to the lowest level that they are confident includes all the possible options, clarifying with comments if more detail is useful. Then nobody is confused about what is possible and there’s no inprecision. But it is true that more could be done to help people with the research and understanding what the limits are.