I can understand @martinax’s frustration with mis-IDs, and I think the reasoning for including the model version is to add additional contextual information, going beyond the current situation where the Computer Vision symbol is useful contextual information, even while it is important to remember that it doesn’t show that an ID was added “automatically”.
If I see a few observations that are way out of the expected range of a species, uploaded by users without many observations and with no IDs for others, and that have the CV symbol on them, it’s pretty likely that those are simply mis-IDs. The Computer Vision symbol gives me an extra piece of evidence that these may have been IDs made by uncritically accepting one of the suggestions. I will take all that information into account alongside my own assessment of the evidence and knowledge of the taxon in question. As I understand it, the op would like to see the model version as well, for additional contextual information. With time, as an identifier focused on one group, it might be possible to start seeing how well the Computer Vision is doing - “up to version 2.13 there were a lot suggestions of Species X for observations of Species Y, but now it’s getting pretty good at correctly suggesting Species Y”.
I can understand why that would be useful extra context for an identifier. If this request is straightforward and low-cost to implement, I don’t see a major downside of doing it. If it would be complex or require a lot of reprogramming, then I could understand why the development team might focus on other issues where the benefit would be higher.
There may also be other more effective ways of addressing the problem that prompted this request - one would be to regularly check the Research Grade observations at @pisum’s link - for now there is just one.