Identify relevant agreements, the work scope and evidence of actual supervision and knowledge use. Explain discrepancies between contractual terms and operating practice.
Explain responsibility rather than collecting labels
Show who sets technical priorities, reviews the employee’s work and provides the employer’s product or service. A letter stating that the worker is specialized cannot replace the factual explanation of the assignment or the underlying L requirements. Distinguish billing arrangements from supervisory ones, because a staffing or services agreement can look similar whether the work reflects specialized knowledge or amounts to placing a worker under another company's day-to-day direction.
Records that show the employer retaining control over assignments, performance evaluation, and the standards applied to the work help separate a genuine knowledge-based deployment from an arrangement built mainly to supply labor at a client site. Compare the statement of work against what the assignment records actually describe, since a broad scope clause does not establish that the applicant continues applying the employer's own methods once on site. Correspondence about escalation paths, who resolves disputes over deliverables, and who can reassign the applicant to different work can be more informative than the underlying contract's recitals.
A site visit report, a supervisor's periodic check-in notes, or a record of which manager signs off on the applicant's deliverables can add direct evidence where the contract language alone stays silent on day-to-day reality. Gaps between what an agreement states and what daily practice shows deserve direct explanation rather than omission.