iNat works on the basis of Community ID, an identification that is “calculated” as a fair representation of what the community thinks it is. Where there is dissention on the ID, then either majority rules out or dialog ensues that educates and reaches concensus regarding the IDs.
There is no such thing as an erroneous identification, in so far as it is what the identifier believes it to be. But there are times when there is dialogue that should in theory be sufficient to persuade a participant on an observation to change their ID, but they don’t. Often this might be because they are absentee, and so didn’t even see the conversation! Then there are those that are new to the platform, and just don’t understand that they need to change their ID to reflect their new understanding, but there can also be times when an identifier is just flat out defiant.
The current flagging ability is for malicious IDs, or inappropriate use of IDs such as jokes and bullying. Someone identifying a house cat as a tiger is not neccesarily being malicious with their IDs either, they might genuinely believe that it is a tiger cub… but if you raise it with them and they state it was a joke, then you would point out that it is not appropriate to make joke IDs, and that that humour is best kept to comments… and if they continue to make such joke IDs, then it becomes appropriate to flag the IDs.
I think there is definitely a place for challenging an ID and potentially making it in-effective towards CID. I raised it again here: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/unexpected-expected-explict-disagreement-to-previous-id-affects-following-ids/14789/9
Particularly in the case of absentee identifiers, I can see this as being very beneficial for the community, but it could potentially be abused, so would need to be thought out and tested carefully.
…and yes, I spelt dialog/ue both ways, because both are right!