So, based on the EVIDENCE weegielass found, well done again, we can assume the following:
When panel withdrew to consider applications, EJ asked Boyd about the question from NC about her academic credentials. Full of her usual bluster and niaive misunderstanding of academia (easily done to be honest because it is a tricky hierarchy to grasp from the outside) she bats EJ back with afront -- University of Ulster made me a visiting prof in...'
EJ immediately realises the problem and suggests Boyd might want to recuse herself on the grounds of ill-health.
Boyd doesn't get it which is why she gave face to NC on exit.
EJ was too busy trying to find legal back up for her intemperate assertion earlier that MD will be released from her oath over the weekend and not finding any was distracted by realising she'd made a tit of herself so didn't properly clock that Boyd recusing herself is not going to be the end of it. Not by any means,
If the title has been used on any legal documents such as judgements (and I can't find any as the search engines aren't really cut out for searching for panel members. Also, interestingly the drop down menu for judges on the Judiciary NII site in the judgement and decisions page doesn't include Sturgeon although she is listed on the main page near the bottom) then those judgements are up shit creek.
I suspect that the title won't be on any docs though and that no one has questioned her use in other ways because no one has wanted to be the one to embarrass her since she has been using it everywhere for aons.
So if not on docs is ignorance a defence? Yes when it comes to Boyd but not when it comes to due process for the courts.