Identify their origin, relevance and what they establish about the applicant’s actual work. Handle shared information appropriately and do not imply personal authorship that did not occur.
Preserve the distinction between project and personal evidence
A joint report may explain the process without proving the applicant worked on every part. Connect it to genuine employment, training or contribution records and explain any limits on the conclusions it supports.
Training records, permitted project descriptions, internal qualification documents and similar evidence can accurately explain the knowledge involved. Use genuine supporting examples and explanations rather than claim sole responsibility for a shared publication. Preserve the minutes as created and build a separate evidence map connecting the employee’s recorded advice to specialized knowledge used in the proposed assignment. A support letter should explain why that evidence demonstrates special knowledge of company products or advanced knowledge of company procedures, rather than general occupational ability. If the senior builder's name appears as author on the first version and as reviser on later ones, the authorship claim is proven without narrative. Attach authentic project files, training emails, revision histories, access logs, or supervisor notes where available, while explaining ordinary gaps.
A manual’s complexity does not automatically establish the reader’s qualifications, while lack of authorship does not automatically defeat them.