I have noticed that a few zero abundance records from butterfly transects appear to be automatically verified and show as presence dots for the species concerned. an example might be the record here https://www.irecord.org.uk/record-details?occurrence_id=18742448. A user has no way of knowing if this is a record of the species without a count or a record of the species being absent from the survey ( I would assume it's the latter, but I could be wrong). Unlike some other zero abundance records this is not shown in strikethrough text on the record list and appears as a positive and verified record of the species. I feel this need sorting quickly as automatic verification of butterfly transect records could potentially create a lot of these 'false' positive records.
EDIT - For the example given above I see in the additional field 'Unconfirmed individuals' there is a value of '2', so this may well be a positivie sighting. This may well be where the discrepancy arises. Another example here however https://www.irecord.org.uk/record-details?occurrence_id=18742430 is less clear. I don't know how widespread such issues are, but for LERC users of the data for example, interpreting the validity of downloaded records in such cases may well be nigh on impossible.