Identify the work, experience and records underlying the comparison. Explain the applicant’s contribution instead of relying on unsupported adjectives.
Keep the evidence relevant and proportionate
Use appropriate company records and avoid collecting unrelated personal details about other staff. A comparison can provide context without replacing the applicant’s own history or the evidence of proposed duties.
Use genuine decisions and work examples that show the employee’s relevant company expertise. Identify appropriate employment, leave, training and project records, with privacy handled appropriately. Have the quality manager write the system description first, because everything else is arranged around it: what the system does beyond regulatory minimums, when each element was introduced, and who wrote it. Controlled documents in a quality system are usually released under a manager’s signature even when an engineer wrote them, and USCIS understands this once it is explained. Preserve relevant project records and avoid backdating or claiming the applicant completed a course that never occurred. Preserve confidentiality and avoid submitting a large manual without identifying the portions relevant to the applicant’s actual capability. Do not edit collaborative records to make the applicant appear solely responsible or reconstruct missing work as though a contemporaneous record existed.