CV has a lot of qualities: it is fast, always there, lack any bias, offers left field options to make me think and works fine for adult birds.
It is definitely not a guide. It ignores taxa that do not have enough RG observations to be included. If CV was validated against related taxa and genera, it would not send observers up the garden path.
There are taxa level suggestions with no location provided, which should not happen either.
When I started, I looked at other photos of suggested taxa and the rest of genus, sometime following up the “Looks similar” tab. I was more confident in my often incorrect IDs than I am now using keys and other resources. It took me months of googling the terms in helpful comments and reading up on subjects to realise where am I on the learning curve.
The iNat guidelines set clear ethical standards for participation and were not intended as an identification guide. There is no mention of keys and nor any general direction how and where to find resources. Combine this with the language that implicates that taxa level research grade is the end game, the pressure is on to agree to CV suggestions.
With no direction and no resources learning is by trial and error and lots of them, even for people who are interested to learn how to identify, Telling people to be more cautious, than the process that produces the suggestions, does not work. It is like telling people not to think about the elephant.
Why not make CV more restrained, to give genus level or higher suggestions to hard to identify taxa?