I understand the 'expertise' bit, but here we don't have any expert input(that I know of, quite a lot of history books are not digitized, and I would imagine there is a lack of interest in the subject of premji family from historians). If some eminent historian have categorically denied(mr jinnah never met mr premji), I would have understood your logic of putting expert's view on higher pedestal.
By the way, I am not implying that any assertion made by any journalist is true, simply because no historian has commented on it.
Remember the level of 'proof' required for an historial incident is usually different from that happened recently. A recent incident demands video/image evidence, where as we are pretty happy with few stone inscriptions to describe ashoka. Premji's story is not that old though.
Another point I should make, historians refer to same raw data while writing history as others, people trace their family history without historian getting involved. If journalist has access to same raw data (this is relatively recent incident,), he can publish it.
Which is why, I was asking what is 'acceptable level of truth' for YOU. Will an Indian origin historian do? What if he is found to have nationalist bias in an unrelated article?
In such important matters though, I will trust a non south asian
, and as we most probably wont find one, this is just a story for me. case closed.