The public planning page need not disclose proprietary material. Confirm appropriate handling for the actual review.
Prepare a factual explanation
Describe the relevant issue and available authentic records. Do not replace evidence with an unsupported claim that everything is secret or invent documents to fill gaps. Use genuine material created through the employee’s work: project reports, training records, technical correspondence, demonstrations, evaluations, manuals annotated by the employee, and declarations from people with direct knowledge.
The evidence should explain the connection between each record and the claimed special or advanced knowledge. Hypothetical example: a flood-sensor manufacturer has a confidential calibration guide, but the proposed transferee only attended an introductory webinar. The company should not claim mastery based on access alone; it should identify actual project involvement or adjust the proposed case.
For customer locations, gather contracts, statements of work, supervision plans, and deliverables that show how the petitioner directs the specialized service. Confirm dates and capacity through payroll and employment records, not unsupported recollection. Avoid inventing secrecy labels to compensate for sparse evidence.
The first review should produce an evidence index with the proposition each item supports, such as foreign employment, entity relationship, knowledge acquisition, or U.S. application. That index makes contradictions visible before they appear in the final submission.
Ask each declarant to explain their own firsthand basis for the statement. A letter is more dependable when it identifies the observed work, dates, and internal process rather than repeating a prepared conclusion.