schneidried's Identifications

Identity narrowed to Sphagnum recurvum and S. fallax by the strongly recurved branch leaves of the dried specimen. Further identified to S. recurvum by its five-ranked branch leaves.

I posted this observation without compound microscope photos as a vehicle for a question to more experienced Sphagnum observers: Can one confidently say “Either S. fallax or S. recurvum” based on strongly recurved branch leaves without having first established that the plant is in Subgenus Cuspidata based on microscopic examination of leaf details? Or are there non-Subgenus Cuspidata Sphagnums with strongly recurved leaves that can mimic S. fallax and S. recurvum?
@janetwright @schneidried Have you seen strongly recurved leaves in non-Subgenus Cuspidata Sphagnums? Do you think my approach to identification of this specimen supports a confident ID, or would you say instead “Credible but not proven”? If you think there is insufficient evidence to identify it as S. recurvum, do you think there is sufficient evidence to say it’s either recurvum or fallax?
Growing in standing water in a wooded wetland.
Addendum: Stem leaf photo added to help to distinguish S. recurvum from S. fallax. I think the rounded, eroded leaf tips provide persuasive evidence that this moss is s. recurvum.

Growing on the edge of a slow-moving stream in shade.
Classified as Sphagnum divinum because of color, shaded habitat, long divergent branch leaves that taper gradually, and spatulate stem leaves. The presence of large pores in the hyaline cells at the base of the branch leaves seems anomalous, more typical of Sphagnum medium. @janetwright @schneidried
Photos:
1,2 In the field.
3,4,5,6 Branch leaf cross sections.
7,8,9 Stem leaves.
10,11,12,13 Stem.
14 Stem cortex.
15,16, 17 Branch leaf base, concave surface.
18,19 Branch leaf bases, convex surface.