Instead of reward mechanisms and facing Goodhart law, I believe the best solution is to allow people to source and have some global notes page for each taxon. Maybe it would be so haphazard at the start, but knowing little tricks for species goes beyond the Wikipedia page linked to taxa or even entire photos.
For example, knowing that the black drongo has a white rictal spot and is the only possible such drongo in that location will greatly help any newbie coming to the platform that a taxa photo page may not always convey directly. Similarly, for example, knowing neck plumes exist only for little egrets in India and throat markings in lesser-golden woodpeckers… there are a lot of such Knowledge clues that an average new iNat user misses when IDing, and I am sure any expert identifier who winces with mis-IDs wants to say something every time. I feel like it is passing on a better torch to recruit new identifiers to feel they are learning things over blindly trusting CV which does not explain its decision (as of now), especially for genus where there is often little to no information online to precisely know what to look for. I have seen one or two such photos showing such markers on taxa level (i dont remember but it is for some moth genus) and I loved people curating them.
I have seen ID’ers wanting to know how to distinguish when they make mis-ID and even though one can chalk it as a google search or species book would be a better solution, I feel there is still a better chance to concisely say some notes in a taxa level here on iNat too.
i feel the above can be two-way process between better CV maybe? and then users learning and jotting such clues to notes then.
also I feel the explore settings in iNat next app is against identifiers.