A job title is evidence of a role, not a complete description of expertise. Two people with the same title may have very different experience, and a generic biography can easily make both sound identical. Documenting practitioner expertise requires starting with the work itself.
Useful evidence can include projects, operating decisions, original methods, authored documents, interviews, presentations, training materials, case records that are appropriate to publish, process maps, research, and professional questions repeatedly handled in practice. The practitioner becomes a primary source for first-hand experience, while external standards or records support propositions that require independent authority.
Interviewing is particularly useful when important knowledge is tacit. Experienced professionals often recognize patterns and dependencies that were never written into a formal manual. A structured interview can ask what changed, what information mattered, what alternatives were rejected, where the constraint lived, and what happened after the intervention. The result is not invented expertise; it is previously undocumented expertise made explicit.
Google’s people-first guidance values first-hand expertise and original information. The relevant lesson is not to manufacture more pages around a title, but to surface knowledge that exists because the practitioner actually did the work.
Documentation should also preserve boundaries. A practitioner can describe personal operating experience without that experience automatically becoming scientific proof, regulatory interpretation, or a universal industry rule. The authority record is strongest when it says exactly what kind of knowledge is being presented.