> Disclaimer, I'm a CTO.
That's not a disclaimer, it's.. a claim. It's not even a 'disclosure' (which is what people saying 'disclaimer' often mean) really, it's more like a 'source', or just.. remove the word?:
> I'm a CTO, here's how I evaluate [...]
Sorry, just bugs me.
I just thought that here the tone was more 'here's why I can give you a good answer' than 'I'm aware my answer may be biased'.
Basically, the three things that are conflated into 'disclosure' are (all 'for example'):
1. (Disclosure) I have a vested interest in this because I work at the company being discussed [but I really think everything's fine and this isn't an issue];
2. (Actual disclaimer) I left the companh being discussed years ago so I have no knowledge of this issue [but my opinion is..];
3. (Source/background/listen to me!) I work at the company being discussed [so I'll pass on your feedback]
For me this is more a 3 than a 1, because there's no 'but' I suppose is the simple way to put it. You disclose a relationship because it might put what you're saying in a different (worse) light; here it's just why it's worth listening to. (If they'd said 'Company X is the best for negotiating salary IMO', 'I am CTO there though' would be a good disclosure!)