Without_taxon_id works inconsistently for observations ID'd below species

Please fill out the following sections to the best of your ability, it will help us investigate bugs if we have this information at the outset. Screenshots are especially helpful, so please provide those if you can.

Platform (Android, iOS, Website): Website

App version number, if a mobile app issue (shown under Settings or About):

Browser, if a website issue (Firefox, Chrome, etc) : Safari

URLs (aka web addresses) of any relevant observations or pages: https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?hrank=species&place_id=1&quality_grade=research&taxon_id=47357&without_taxon_id=899551,899553,899552,899575,899576,899554,899555,899582,899581,899580,158165,75349,128098,158181,158176

Screenshots of what you are seeing (instructions for taking a screenshot on computers and mobile devices: https://www.take-a-screenshot.org/):

Description of problem (please provide a set of steps we can use to replicate the issue, and make as many as you need.):

The following URL https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?hrank=species&place_id=1&quality_grade=research&taxon_id=47357&without_taxon_id=899551,899553,899552,899575,899576,899554,899555,899582,899581,899580,158165,75349,128098,158181,158176

should give every RG observation in genus allium in the US at species or lower, minus every subgenus that has any RG observations in the US (and the miscellaneous species without any ranks between genus and species). In other words it should not return anything. In fact, it returns 111 observations, all of which have parent taxa that should be excluded by the search filter. I believe the common pattern is that all of the observations are CID’d to variety.

This behavior is, however, not consistent between different variations of the URL: for example, a search for all RG angiosperm IDs except monocots and dicots returns nothing, as expected https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=1&quality_grade=research&taxon_id=47125&without_taxon_id=47163,47124

There was an indexing issue and those observations index without the subgenus in their ancestries, leading to the improper match. I’ve reindexed them and there are no longer results for that search.