The flower is beautiful, no doubt. Well grown too.
That being said, just because it was bought as one name, doesn’t make it so. Plant tags are not taxonomic indicators. The formal description of fischeri claims that this species name has two distinguishing characteristics, one is an extra floral part, a lobe between the synsepal and the slipper. The second is a quadratic staminode. This flower has neither and does not meet the description. Actually, no plant at the type location does. Fischeri is the only one of the 8 names associated with schlimii that has a 0% correlation between the type description and the plants at the original location. Other than the name on the tag, what makes this a fischeri? Color, no we find that color all over Colombia. The slipper? No, we find that form all over Colombia. Something else other than the dealers desire to sell you a plant? I am not seeing it.
Phragmipedium schlimii, the rarely seen form lacking a staminode. Humboltii and boisserianum also produce forms lacking a staminode.
Take care of your plant. Many a breeder would love to have that plant.
Is there anyone here that has not read my article formally dropping this name into the synonymy of schlimii? It was originally published in the Digest and was reprinted in Die Orchidee and a few other publications by request. It’s all in there, the photos, the methodology, the supporting studies and the conclusions. For more detail see my articles in the Digest year end 2020 wherein I do a deep dive into the species concept in the genus. Apologies way to much to reproduce here.