I think it really depends on how far you want to stretch the "Complex is recognized in the literature" condition from the curator guide. As far as I know the information on BG is based on more or less casual remarks about putative relationships in Robinson's 1964 "A Synopsis of the Dolichopodidae of the Southeastern United States and Adjacent Regions." But the group composition on BG does not strictly follow Robinson's assertions. For example, Robinson does not mention C. longitalus as part of the C. sipho group. Also, I may be wrong about this, but I think the raison d'être for iNat species complexes is not to help us put things in buckets for species that are hard to tell apart based on photographs. Rather it is for species that are difficult to tease apart even for scientists, especially if there are doubts about the validity of some of the species in the complex. That seems to be the case for all the vertebrate species complexes that I have come across, and it is true for the one Diptera species complex I have created.

From the forum thread: "Species groups and species complexes are work-around solutions for populations of closely related organisms which have not yet been fully addressed systematically and taxonomically."

I think that's really the issue, not so much whether you want to call it a species complex or a species group. The species in the Condylostylus groups can be fairly easily distinguished with specimens in hand and in some cases also on the basis of good macro photos covering multiple angles. There's no taxonomic conundrum here.