Clarify the actual eligibility review and appropriate process first. Do not assume another extension is available merely because the employer is willing to fund it.
Separate historical analysis from filing expenses
Ask what record collection and time assessment are included in the professional scope, apart from current official charges. Payment does not extend a statutory limit or resolve a missing requirement. Put the review ahead of the payment for a plain reason: the payment is not recoverable and the review can change the answer.
The order to follow is the eligibility review, then the choice of process, then the filing and its charges — a sequence that costs slightly more time and considerably less money than paying first and meeting the constraint afterwards. Ask which parts of the historical analysis fall inside the professional scope: collecting records, reconciling conflicting dates and producing a written view on available time are three separable pieces of work and may be priced separately. Confirm current official charges at the time of filing rather than from an earlier estimate.
An employer willing to fund a further extension is expressing a business preference; payment does not extend an applicable limit and does not supply a requirement the facts do not meet. Ask for the written view to be dated and to list the records it relied on, because an opinion whose factual basis is unstated cannot be revisited when a missing document finally arrives.