I think that second competency essentially aims at getting people with adjudicative experience. You're looking at people who have worked for other boards, worked in the judiciary, and have had some kind of decision-making power, and that aptitude will be demonstrated through that experience. Really what I'm suggesting is that it's not sufficient to look for people who have simply subject-matter expertise. You want a blend of people.
You may not be looking for someone who has neither subject matter expertise nor adjudicative expertise. They wouldn't necessarily fall within the list of ideal candidates. However, if you're looking at adjudicators, people who bring professionalism in terms of how to run a hearing, how to pose appropriate questions, and how to assess credibility, I think you're drawing from the community of people with adjudicative expertise.