At least in my region, with the taxa I work with, I almost never see these features used to get observations back to a coarser ID. And they are not in my personal repetoire either, that’s why I’m asking.
So this sounds a bit as if you would recommend not acting on such problems in the first place? Which is for me very acceptable as it means much less work; I don’t want to invest a lot of time to do something that is against consensus (which is why I opened this post).
I never thought about using it the other way around, “can be improved -> yes” instead of disagreeing and then check “can be improved -> no”. Is “can be improved -> yes” the best way to get back to a coarser ID? It feels a bit counter-intuitive to say “can be improved” when I actually think “it has to stay at the coarser ID and cannot be improved”.