I think ultimately there’s no way to have iNat recognize the difference between “As good as it can be” “due to the observation details” vs. “due to the taxon needing more research”. In either case, there’s not a recognized taxonomic bin lower than genus that the observation can be confidently placed in. At all the BioBlitzes I’ve been to, the master list will include things like “Chionodes sp. 1”, “Chionodes sp. 2”, etc. to represent that a certain number of different species were observed, even if a species-level identification is not warranted for any of them. I worry that adding a feature like this to iNat would simply create a backdoor for people with strong unpublished taxonomic opinions (read: hardcore splitters) to beef up lists with unrecognized taxa.
I say this as someone who has a series of “undescribed moth” projects, like this one:
https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/battaristis-new-species
Am I pretty much certain that the moths in this project are in fact an undescribed species of Battaristis? Yes. Has that assertion been published and undergone peer review? No. So while I would personally add it to a BioBlitz list as “Battaristis sp. 1” if I were holding a Blitz in a local park, I do not think iNat ought to create the ability to do so on its platform. Because as soon as I can “count” my undescribed Battaristis as a species without any published reference, Splitter McSplitface can come along and use this same feature to “count” the 50 unrecognized species in his pet genus as different species too, and we’ve in essence created competing taxonomies on iNat.
As annoying as it is to not have species “count” if they need more taxonomic work to be recognized (heck, I’d probably add 100 species to my life list if I could make undescribed stuff count), I think the current conservative approach to taxonomy on iNat is “as good as it can be”.