while visual similarity is the main component of the scores/rankings, my understanding is that location does factor into the rankings slightly. specifically, taxa with nearby observations will get a slight boost in their rankings, and, depending on whether you’ve chosen to include or exclude nearby observations, taxa without nearby observations may be excluded from the computer visions suggestions altogether.
also, i believe computer vision suggestions should be limited by the observation’s iconic taxon based on existing identifications at time of the computer vision assessment.
accurate is hard to quantify in this context, but if you want to get a better sense of how the computer vision ranks / scores its suggestions, see this: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/computer-vision-should-tell-us-how-sure-it-is-of-its-suggestions/1230/50.
there’s also a browser extension that someone developed to help you visualize the scores: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/computer-vision-should-tell-us-how-sure-it-is-of-its-suggestions/1230/44.