I don't think there's a hierarchy. The first thing to do is to listen to one another and, if there is a difference, to ask why. We also have to ask ourselves how the measures were established on each side or how the information was generated.
Let me give you a concrete example. A few years ago, in the Northwest Territories, if I remember correctly, government surveys showed that a caribou herd had disappeared. There was an uproar. People wondered what had happened and whether the caribou had been wiped out. Indigenous people in that area said that they hadn't disappeared, but had migrated to another location, which is uncommon. Indigenous people had to repeat this explanation several times before government employees flew by helicopter over the precise spot designated by the indigenous people and found the caribou herd. No caribou were missing.
Sometimes we have to admit that one of the two methods was wrong. In my example, science was wrong, but sometimes it's indigenous knowledge. No one is perfect. When there are discrepancies, the idea is to conduct separate audits to try to determine where the error is. Normally, if there is a phenomenon, there should be a convergence.