iNat identifications are based on community ID, ie the concensus of what the community thinks it is.
If you can see evidence that it is NOT that species then you can disagree explicitly (the orange option if it asks “the question”), but it helps if you also comment as to why you think it isn’t.
If you think it should be bumped back a level or so due to lack of evidence, then you should make an ID at the appropriate level (and choose the green option when it asks) AND start a discussion with the aim of convincing them that they should also change their IDs accordingly. You have to remember that they may have been privy to more evidence than you yourself are seeing… or maybe they know something that disambiguates the possibilities that you are not aware of…
But… if they are not responsive to the discussion, or if you have had the conversation with the community at large on other observations and they also agree with you, then you can consider making the ID an explicit disagreement on the basis that it is “over-reaching”. It’s a good idea to add a comment to that effect though.
I have myself made explicit disagreements with IDs that I think are over-reaching, even though I have not been part of any community discussion about the over-reaching nature of them… but I will always add a comment indicating that I am explicitly disagreeing only on that basis of over-reach AND that I believe others would agree with me, and that if the observer or other identifiers can give reason for me not to do so, I would happily remove my explicit disagreement.
One thing that really get’s my iNat hackles up, is when someone holds onto an explicit disagreement for over-reach, despite my having asserted my confidence in my finer ID… the very opposite of “the community would agree with me”, as I am asserting that I for one don’t… it feels very much like they are dismissing me as “not a part of the community”.