In short, none of this testing for actual truth. No comparing to established knowledge and/or principles. No claiming of ownership, either. It's not my truth. Homey don't Ti.
My actual cognition, the cognition that'd could come close to being identified with me, part of the putative topic of this thread, would take the purportedly authoritative statement and spend some time wondering what it meant. One might refine the expression. One would definitely compare the seeming implication of the statement to what one already thinks of as his vision of the world, and see which one fits which.
In short, I haven't used other people's cognition. Have made reference to its results, perhaps, but their cognition isn't part of mine in any particularly useful sense I recognise.
The whole thing about using other people's cognition was, as you presumably already know, a (loosely worded) poke at claims that all cognitive functions are available to all people. They're not. And that's just another way of saying there are widespread, observable differences between people that aren't random.
EDIT: addendum, and tangent, because come to think on it, I'm probably officially more inclined to arguments from authority, at least in public, by virtue of officially less conscious control over properly Te discussion. Sorry, ENTJs. Hubris.