No. The actual knowledge, proposed work and other requirements need an accurate evidentiary basis. Confidence of wording does not replace facts.
Explain what the applicant knows
Identify the relevant product or process, acquired experience and use in U.S. duties. Avoid unsupported claims of uniqueness or indispensability.
The letter should help connect genuine evidence, not make a missing requirement disappear. Hypothetical example: a draft letter calls a clinical microbiologist indispensable to the company’s testing operation. That adjective does no work at all, and the sentence beneath it is what matters: which method the person developed or maintains, when the company adopted it, which internal documents describe it, and what the receiving operation would be unable to run without that particular experience.
Substitute the specific for the emphatic everywhere the draft raises its voice. Two categories of knowledge are recognised and they are described differently, so choose deliberately: special knowledge of the company’s product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management or other interests and their application in international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge of the organization’s own processes and procedures. Knowledge need not be unique or proprietary to qualify, but whichever category is relied on must be supported by facts a reader can check rather than by the confidence of the wording.
Choose the category once, at the start, and keep the whole description consistent with that choice.