Update the actual positions, responsibilities and reporting arrangements for review. Do not rely on a former team description when the proposed role has materially changed.
Check the role that will actually begin
Identify which work moves to the applicant and which authority remains. Have implications for the immigration matter assessed before acting on the revised plan. The original organizational chart cannot settle the effect of later changes.
Check USCIS processing times and decide whether premium processing is worth its cost.
Explain whether the applicant’s work changed substantively and what resources support the role. The managerial or executive standard turns on actual authority over a function or over subordinate staff, not on how many names appear on an organizational chart, so a smaller or restructured team does not by itself weaken a role that still carries genuine direction and decision-making authority. Ask what decisions the applicant would still make after the restructuring, who reports those outcomes upward, and who carries out the directed work, since those answers matter more than a headcount comparison against an earlier chart. Confirm separately whether any function the applicant previously oversaw has moved elsewhere in the organization, since losing real authority over a function differs from losing a reporting line that was mostly nominal. Request an updated description of the role as it will actually operate once the restructuring is complete, rather than annotating the original chart with informal notes about who moved where. Revisit the classification analysis itself once that description exists, instead of assuming the earlier conclusion survives a team that no longer looks as it did when that conclusion was first reached.