Clarify the genuine overlap, individual responsibilities and decision process. Correct inconsistent descriptions instead of leaving both people described as the sole decision-maker.
Use a responsibility comparison supported by facts
Identify the tasks, decisions and support relevant to each person, with shared duties marked honestly. The comparison explains the evidence; it should not create responsibilities absent from the actual proposed operation.
A qualifying relationship can be parent and subsidiary, two subsidiaries of the same parent, or affiliates owned and controlled by the same individual or group of individuals, each owning roughly the same share and proportion of each entity. Compare the job account with genuine policies, reporting lines and relevant examples. A proposed resolution and an effective appointment are different facts. Explain limits on the applicant’s discretion as well as significant responsibility. What persuades is specificity: the number and roles of people reporting to the applicant, the decisions the applicant makes without approval, the budget signed off, the function owned. Job descriptions and a duty allocation should explain who handles routine work. Assemble the two sets separately, because reviewers read them for different purposes and a bundle that mixes them tends to leave one proposition thinly supported.