Common company facts may be reused accurately, but the individual contribution, learning history and assignment must match each employee. A shared narrative should not attribute one person’s work to the entire group.
Check the letters together for contradictions
Compare claims about who designed, implemented or taught a process. Preserve the real collaboration and make sure each example identifies the applicant’s own role.
A shared slide deck may not show who developed the method or who understands difficult applications. Do not add the employee’s name to historical material to manufacture participation. When several letters are prepared around the same period for the same organization, have each subject review only their own section before signing, since a shared drafting process can otherwise blend two people's contributions into indistinguishable language. Watch for identical process descriptions appearing verbatim across unrelated applicants, because wording that reads as a template raises doubt about whether either account reflects a personal understanding of the work. Use a distinct set of examples for each applicant rather than drawing from the same small pool of project references, and confirm that titles, dates, and reporting lines stay consistent with what each individual's other records already show. Keep the review of multiple letters coordinated, since contradictions between letters submitted together are easier to catch before filing than after several separate petitions have already gone out.