Where relevant to explaining the change, identify its date and clearly distinguish it from the current or proposed structure. Avoid unexplained conflicting charts.
Give each document its proper context
Provide the revised job description, relevant staffing records and an explanation of transferred tasks. Mark assumptions and vacancies honestly. Let the evidence describe the actual operation rather than selecting whichever version looks most favourable.
The extension will be judged on what the cross-dock actually became: leases, hires, freight volume and organization charts as they existed, not as forecast. Meeting notes, approvals, organization charts, payroll, and performance materials should tell the same story. Labeling each chart version as superseded, current or proposed, with the date range it covers, prevents an officer from reading two different structures as contradictory rather than sequential. A short note attached to a superseded chart explaining what changed and why, whether a departure, growth or a deliberate restructuring, turns a discarded document into useful context instead of an unexplained loose end. Submitting only the most favorable version invites more scrutiny than including the earlier one, since an inconsistency an officer finds independently, through a prior filing or a public record, reads worse than the same fact disclosed voluntarily. Keeping the superseded chart in the same file as the current one, rather than removed once it is out of date, shows the progression rather than only the endpoint.