On Stack Exchange sites and others, moderation privileges are managed by a reputation score which is essentially a way of capturing subject authority as well as capturing how well that member engages with the community. Reputation represents a sum of community engagement and subject matter authority.
I'm working on a community site that identifies subject matter authority separately to community engagement. Users who are more qualified/authoritative on a subject have higher privileges and are able to edit and approve answers whereas less authoritative users have fewer privileges.
Take a travel community for an example. If the site has articles on places, people who have visited that place have more authority than someone who hasn't and so they have corresponding moderation privileges. People who are local to that place have the highest authority so have the highest level of privileges.
It's clear to me that expert users are not necessarily good moderators; they may be more capable of editing for accuracy but they have no advantage in editing for quality, appropriateness, user conduct and other aspects of general site moderation. Non-expert users may be effective moderators as much as a expert user may be. How can I incorporate moderation privileges as distinct from expert user privileges? Have I tied subject matter authority too closely to privileges used for moderation? If so, what privileges should I give to those with subject matter authority?