Conference papers vs. journal articles under the scholarly articles criterion

My field publishes a meaningful share of its most significant work at conferences rather than exclusively in journals, and I wasn't initially sure how conference papers fit under "authorship of scholarly articles in the field, in professional or major trade publications or other major media." What I learned: conference papers can count, but the same underlying question applies as with any scholarly authorship claim — is the venue genuinely selective and recognized in the field, and does the paper itself represent real scholarly work, not just a poster or abstract with minimal review. In my field, top-tier peer-reviewed conference proceedings are widely regarded as equivalent in rigor to strong journal publications, and I documented that field-specific context explicitly, since a reviewer outside my field wouldn't necessarily know that without it being explained. The context-providing step mattered as much as the papers themselves: I included a brief explanation of my field's specific publishing conventions (why top conferences carry the weight they do) rather than assuming a reviewer would already understand that convention the way someone in my field would.