What is the "inherently improbable" standard for determining credibility in a sexual assault case?

At its core, defendant's argument is nothing more than an assertion that Gallegos lacked credibility due to what he believes are "contradictory" descriptions; it is nothing more than a request that this court reweigh the evidence. That is not the function of an appellate court. (People v. Ceja (1993) 4 Cal.4th 1134, 1138-1139.) "The inherently improbable standard addresses the basic content of the testimony itselfi.e., could that have happened?rather than the apparent credibility of the person testifying. . . . In other words, . . . [t]he only question is: Does it seem possible that what the witness claimed to have happened actually happened?" (People v. Ennis (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 721, 729.)