Reptile Database is hedging it bets on this one listing it as a valid subspecies of Demansia psammophis and also as a synonym of Demansia reticulata (without a subspecies epithet specified).
http://reptile-database.reptarium.cz/species?genus=Demansia&species=psammophis&search_param=%28%28search%3D%27demansia+reticulata%27%29%29
http://reptile-database.reptarium.cz/species?genus=Demansia&species=reticulata&search_param=%28%28search%3D%27demansia+reticulata%27%29%29

All good - a couple of us have convinced RD to make a change. This taxon should be listed as Demansia reticulata cupreiceps in the next RD update. See https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/34592638

@loarie, it seems the change was derailed by an innocuous pers comm. from Glenn Shea to Peter Uetz that has been given more weight than it deserved. It has resulted in RD, and therefore iNat, being out of step with current understanding in the the Australian herp community, both amateur and professional. This conflict is causing problems in iNat and, frankly, it's a PITA to have to keep "correcting" observations and explaining why.
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/51573478
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/58591189

In my view it's time for us to deviate from RD on this one. I will draft the necessary swaps and do the atlases if we're in agreement.

Cheers, not a problem.

Problem is: nobody has sorted this out. As you can see from the comments in the database, I have talked about this with several experts, and there seems to be no consensus or final clarification yet. I have a manuscript on this from 2015 which never got published. Anyway, I can move cupreiceps to reticulata, but even that is preliminary as there seems to be no DNA or other detailed data to stabilize the situation.