A name change by itself does not touch the elements the case rests on: Canadian or Mexican citizenship, which permanent residence alone does not satisfy, a qualifying listed profession, prearranged professional work in the United States, and temporary entry. What matters is that the record shows the employment is the same employment, with the same duties.
Test continuity, not branding
The useful question is whether the employing party in the signed offer is the same legal person as the one issuing the current letter. If yes, the file needs consistent paperwork and a plain explanation of the change. If no, the professional would be working for a different employer, which raises its own authorization questions that a corrected letter cannot resolve on its own.
Work from the registry outward. The extract establishes whether one legal person continued or two now exist; everything else — the letter, the payroll record, the reporting line — is then read against that finding rather than used to guess at it. Hypothetical example: an optical metrology engineer signs with a lens manufacturer that later merges into a larger optics group; because the group is a different legal person, the qualifying question is not whether the duties survived but whether a new prearranged professional engagement with that group exists.
Note also that citizenship supplies the qualifying nationality here: Canadian permanent residence does not open TN, and the profession must be one on the USMCA list, matched to the credential the applicant actually holds.