No assumption of that kind should be made. The actual role and other L requirements need evidence and assessment; wording cannot supply responsibilities the applicant does not have.
Ask what the professional scope actually covers
Separate factual role review, supporting document preparation and current official charges. Paying for persuasive wording is not a substitute for determining whether the proposed position qualifies.
Explain who performs the tasks, the available resources and the applicant’s responsibilities. Financial support does not establish all role, employment and organizational requirements. Ask how the rewritten description will be checked against actual staffing records, reporting lines and decision logs, since language describing authority the applicant does not exercise in practice will not hold up under review. Request that any drafting work start from existing personnel records, budget approvals and organizational charts rather than from a blank page, so the wording reflects documented practice instead of an aspiration. Confirm who has authority to hire, evaluate or discipline subordinate staff, and make sure the description matches what that person can actually show, not only what the title implies. Separate the cost of accurately describing an existing role from the cost of reviewing whether that role, once accurately described, actually qualifies, because the two questions call for different work. Ask for examples of how similar roles have been documented previously, so expectations for what the description needs to demonstrate are clear before drafting begins.