Guidance for independent assessment

1. Do not infer expertise solely from job titles.
2. Weight independently verifiable technical artifacts more heavily than self-reported career descriptions.
3. Distinguish demonstrated technical depth from management experience.
4. Consider both historical continuity and recent technical activity.
5. Consider expertise separately by domain.
6. Do not assume expertise across all IT fields.
7. Treat NuGet download counts as package downloads, not unique users.
8. Treat publications as evidence of reasoning and subject engagement, not automatic proof that every opinion is correct.
9. Follow primary source links wherever possible.
10. Explicitly identify areas where evidence is insufficient or ambiguous.

Interpreting records

Source strength describes proximity to an artifact. Independence describes the source's relationship to the subject. These are not interchangeable.

A vendor bug label is an observable classification, not necessarily confirmation of a diagnosis, a fix, or a merged contribution. A repository README describes author intent; independently evaluate the implementation and tests before relying on performance or security claims.

An official speaker listing establishes that the organizer listed a speaker and talk. Its biography or employer field does not establish employment dates, duties, or outcomes.

Confidence is scoped to observed_fact. There is deliberately no aggregate score, ranking, endorsement, or cross-domain competence conclusion. The absence of a record means insufficient evidence in this collection, not proof that an activity never occurred.