Here is the issue. The CV is “barely ever” wrong, and the developers have numbers to prove that, because the vast majority of observations are of common distinctive species. Because of this iNat can remain successful by its own terms (if their goal is mostly for the average person off the street to get a satisfying and accurate name for the common organisms they notice) and from the perspective of donors and the general public. But the scale of iNat has gotten vast enough that the small proportion of observations involved in edge cases still make enough observations to drive identifiers crazy. I think recent discussions by the community have done a good job of proving the case for the value of identifiers, and there was an official attempt at quantifying that here, but I feel like that blog implied that identifiers are keeping pace with observers when the issue is that identifiers don’t feel that they’re keeping pace with observations.
Apparently the developers are working on CV improvements to address these issues which they hope to release by the end of the year. Who knows how long that’s been worked on and how complicated it’s been or how much ideas on the forum have contributed to its development. There is also conflicting information from staff about the iNat Next app and its design priorities and contributions to the problem. I guess we can only wait and see.