Experience is one of the most important forms of professional knowledge. A practitioner can explain how a process is actually performed, what exceptions appear in practice, what questions customers ask, and what operational patterns recur. That material is often absent from generic sources.
The limitation is inferential. Observing an outcome does not automatically establish why the outcome occurred, how often it would occur in a broader population, or whether another factor caused it. The FTC’s health guidance is particularly clear that anecdotes and individual experiences are not substitutes for appropriate scientific substantiation when a marketer makes an objective health claim.
This does not diminish practitioner expertise. It makes the kind of expertise explicit. First-hand knowledge can support a detailed process explanation, a case narrative with appropriate privacy protections, or a professional perspective. External research may be required to support a general causal or health-benefit proposition.
Google’s emphasis on first-hand expertise and original information makes practitioner material valuable for people-first content. The safest and most useful approach is to publish that experience in its proper category instead of inflating it into a different evidence type.
A strong authority record can contain both practitioner experience and scientific evidence, linked but not confused.