I agree. Even in more charismatic taxa like birds, a description of the bird’s vocalization can work alongside a photo to allow for a specific ID, even if the vocalization wasn’t recorded. Behaviors like “tail-bobbing” can be described and help with an ID even if they weren’t recorded.
I get that we’re only supposed to provide IDs that we can “independently verify” based on the evidence provided, but field notes, reports of tests performed, etc. still count as “evidence”. If one were to take the “verification” idea to a literal extreme, then nothing could ever reach research grade. How can I independently verify that the location is correct? That the photo wasn’t manipulated? That the field notes aren’t lies? The official iNat policy is that you have to be able to arrive at the identity on your own from the evidence provided. So in my mind, that means “trust me I saw it, it was this species!!” is not grounds for agreement, but “I made the following observations/did the following test” can be taken into account.