@cooperj @pulk Any objections?

I think it depends on how much you want to lump or split these taxa:

Pleuroflammula s.str. (does anyone know where the type, P. dussii, belongs?)
the "P." flammea/praestans clade
the "P." multifolia/subsulphurea/tuberculosa clade
the "P." proximans/granulosa clade

I don't think there's any great evidence that any of these are congeneric. At least the latter three, the only ones with names being actively applied, don't look similar to each other. Admittedly, there also doesn't seem to be great evidence any are NOT congeneric. But even if they all belong in the same genus (Pleuroflammula), it's not unreasonable to assume that they'll be assignable to separate sections within it, and that sect. Flavidula would provide the name for the 3rd taxon. So I might lean toward keeping the name and using it for that.

I'll defer to your preference about lumping and splitting, but what exactly would be the confusion with the split? The species would be P. multifolia, subsulphurea, and tuberculosa. I think it would be fine to graft the sectional name under Pholiota (definitely wrong phylogenetically; acceptable nomenclaturally) or Pleuroflammula (possibly wrong phylogenetically; misleading nomenclaturally purely due to iNat's omission of genera in infrageneric combinations).