Yes, it was you! I couldn't find any biographical info so didn't feel it was right to post a handle. This represents a new genus and species at the Maryland Biodiversity Project so they really want submissions properly vetted. I'm interested in the level of expertise of Even and Zachary Dankowicz, too. MBP adds experts to their list on iNat if they meet their criteria.

Depending on your definition of expert. The best way to say it is I'm a self made expert. This group has been very much neglected for the most part on both Bugguide and iNaturalist. Though it was much worse on iNaturalist before me and some others started IDing them. So instead of learning how to ID moths, or beetles, or something easy that a number of people already know how to ID. I choose to learn a neglected group that needed help. My expertise comes from me solely focusing on this group for the past 8 months. Collecting keys, books, species diagnoses, creating checklists, working on a long somewhat personal guide for lack of a better word compiling identification info for Tanypodinae and Chironominae of the Nearctic. By the literal sense, I'm not an expert. But because the experts of Chironomidae are so few and far between with almost none using Bugguide or iNaturalist. I have still pretty much became at least on iNaturalist the de facto Chironomidae expert on there.

All of my identification knowledge comes from published books, reports, and papers.

Just a quick note that the MBP iNat ingest system uses a variety of quality rules and is much more extensive than just a list of automatically trusted identifiers. Ultimately there is no perfect system and just like BG, we do our best to maximize the value of the data (and minimize risk of errors). I think ultimately we'll ultimately find our way to an AI-based scoring where you search based on defined scale. Depending on your use case, you can have a higher threshold for risk, etc. Also it's awesome you're diving into those groups. Keep going and let us know how we can help!