Yes. Thank you for that question.
I think it touches on some of the things that have been talked about today.
As I discussed, our process heavily relied on the IUCN and COSEWIC processes, which are based on scientific knowledge. When traditional knowledge holders came to the table, it didn't fit their world view and the way that they viewed the different species. Really, changing the system to a dual process to allow for each knowledge system to put forward their own information allowed us to communicate in a way that best fits that knowledge system.
One concrete example would be considering barren ground caribou. In a normal scientific status report, we talk about the systematic and taxonomic classification of barren ground caribou. They're a branch of tarandus.
What does that mean for indigenous peoples? To flip that, indigenous knowledge holders and experts in the field changed that to how they view the species as a whole and how they see the herds on the ground. Based on science, in the barren ground caribou status report, we relied heavily on definitions of herds, while the indigenous knowledge component looked at such things as where the barren ground caribou are travelling and what their range is, as well as their colour, body condition and even the taste of the meat. That resulted in a different identification of herds.