**TL;DR**
---

I am not convinced that you have a free pass to broadcast your lack of qualification to any external person without any oversight by (nor repercussion from) your company, and that is what you are arguing for in this case.

-----

The longer answer
---

I came into this question thinking (based on the title) that it was about your management wanting to hide your career achievements or hide the fact that they made you do something they could get in trouble for, and I was strongly on your side here.

However, the real story is more nuanced and I think you're dealing with crossed wires between you and your boss.

In regards to your personal achievement, whether it be a CV or being able to take credit for your contribution to the project, you are absolutely entitled to state what your contribution has been.

If there is every any blowback on this project stemming from your lack of qualification, as long as you took due diligence to point out your lack of qualification to the right people beforehand, you should be absolved of any real responsibility (barring cases of plain bad work that an unqualified person should plainly understand).

However...

> Now my superiors want to keep and to deploy the model. **When I was talking to someone that could provide the financial support to do so**, I mentioned I have no training in X area and still had the obligation to label the data myself, so I asked in the "requirements list" for the model to be successful to have a professional to look at the theory I took into account, to help with gathering more data and to label it.

That is pretty much the _last_ person you should be telling this to. You are undermining the confidence of your company's potential investor into the project.

Stating that you personally recommend having a professional vet the theory before releasing it is absolutely fine (assuming you already mentioned this to your company and they did not already state that they would do so themselves). Stating that you have no qualification on the subject is not fine.

There are two outcomes here. Either you built it badly, in which case asking for the professional's review would have caught this anyway. Or you built it (sufficiently) correctly, at which point your comment about your lack of qualification does nothing except open the door to the investor backing out before even having a professional take a look at it and confirm that it works.

If someone tells you they've got a gold nugget for sale, you'll want to get your geologist in to confirm but you'd be interested in buying it. If that person also tells you that they can't really tell a gold nugget from a lump of sand, are you going to be as interested? Are you even going to be as willing to call your geologist in to have a look at this potential lump of sand?

The person's statement about their inability to detect gold does not change the possibility that the thing they're selling is an actual gold nugget. However, their statement significantly lowers your expectation of getting an actual gold nugget. The offered product did not change after the salesman made that statement, but your interest in the offered product was negatively impacted regardless.

In real life, you are this nugget salesman. Is your employer going to be happy with you proclaiming the inability to distinguish gold? Have you even considered that maybe someone else at the company had already done a first pass check to confirm it is indeed a gold nugget? Because if so, your statement has completely eroded all the value from their effort.

> I'm disgusted. It's not ethical to omit that kind of details. If the model is indeed going to be used in the field X, it NEEDS to be reliable, and it surely will not be very much reliable if an inexperienced person labeled the data it was trained on.

I do not believe that you were being told that you couldn't ask for a professional's review. I believe that you were being asked to not be blatant about your own lack of qualification _to an investor_.

The freedom of being able to claim your achievements does not absolve you from any consequences if you put your foot in your mouth. Regardless of your statement having been objectively correct, you very likely spoke out of turn here.

You were representing your company's product, not your own. This distinction is very important. You represented it using only your (unqualified) profile. You have effectively shut out any other effort/value that the company may have put into this product.

At best, you've tainted an investor's confidence for no reason. At worst, you've eroded additional effort/value that the company put into the product that you were simply not aware of.

> I never thought it would be a problem to say that to external people

Have you ever considered why we label some people as internal versus external? It is specifically because external people do not get to know how the sausage is made; or only selectively so.

You should have voiced your concerns internally, and you should have stayed out of any external communication _unless_ you had tangible proof that the company was covering up something that would be damaging to the public - and to be very clear I do not believe this to be the case here based on what you've written.

> should I keep stating the fact that I performed a task I'm not qualified to even if my superiors don't want me to do so? 

In general, I agree with empowering whistleblowing when a company does something bad (whether intentional or not) and all reasonable attempts to resolve the matter internally have failed.

However, I am not convinced that the company here is guilty of a cover-up. I suspect you're jumping to that conclusion too quickly and in the process you are glossing over the fact that you did in fact state something to a particular person that you should not have.

Your principles are good at heart but slightly misplaced in this scenario.

> How can I explain them that I feel more comfortable doing so, since my name (and reputation) is involved, and since any project of this kind must be transparent?

As I mentioned before, asking for a professional's review is okay, and you can explain that. _Internally_, you can state that this is due to your lack of qualification. Externally, you do not talk about your qualification. Unless you are asked a direct question, at which point I do agree that you should not lie either, but you should still (a) redirect towards the company's focus and (b) make sure to explain that your personal lack of qualification is not necessarily indicative of the company's overall effort on the project.

However, **I am not convinced that you have a free pass to broadcast your lack of qualification to any external person without any oversight by (nor repercussion from) your company, and that is what you are arguing for in this case.**