Rare Plant Inventory -- Consistency Issue?

[PeterJWarner]

In preparing provisional rare plant lists for consulting work, I've noticed that my searches using habitat types do not yield consistent returns. For instance, a search for rare plants in coastal habitats in Mendocino and Sonoma Counties yielded Calochortus raichei and Eriogonum cedrorum (I suppose because I used North Coast coniferous forest as one habitat of interest), but this did not also yield several other rare taxa from the same habitat, e.g., Erigeron serpentinus, Asclepias solanoana. This has me a bit concerned about the Inventory's capability to provide comprehensive and consistent results, at least when using habitat types as a filter.

In addition, some of the nomenclature has been revised, but some has not, so the provisional list must now also be screened to be consistent with nomenclature as published in the Jepson Manual 2nd edition.

I presume the work of maintaining the Online Inventory isn't paid by CNPS (it should be compensated somehow), so I'm wondering if there's some way users, such as me, can assist in correcting inconsistencies such as these?