Right now, with 72 observations T. Blanchardi is just shy of the threshold for inclusion in the computer vision model, 100. If you can ‘mine’ Australian insect observations to get at least 28 more observations of T. Blanchardi ID’d to species, it can be included in the CV and we can find out how good it is capable of being for them.
On the first obs of T. Blanchardi I pulled up, the CV is ‘pretty sure’ it is Tenodera, and of course offers T. australasiae as the top suggestion below that. So right now it is working about as well as theoretically possible without knowing about T. Blanchardi.
There is a thread here: https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/identification-quality-on-inaturalist/7507 and the model is about 95% accurate when it is confident enough to say ‘we’re pretty sure’. As in the Tenodera example, it can really only achieve full accuracy when it knows about everything common in the genus or at least all reasonable lookalikes.
I believe the original motive for tracking whether CV was used for an ID and creating the ‘CV used’ sparkling shield was partly to preserve the ability to do something like this if it becomes a problem in the future. Right now, it is not a problem for the most part, because for the vast majority of taxa the main limiting factor on the CV accuracy is insufficient data, not mis IDs, so excluding partially CV-derived would be counter-productive. If in the future inat has billions of good observations to choose from and CV accuracy is still a problem, it might make more sense to be pickier about which ones get added to the CV.