Use the actual approval and organization list, together with the destination entity’s legal records. Reconcile any name changes or transactions rather than assuming a similar name is enough.
Compare the approved record with current facts
An internal group chart may include companies added after the approval. Identify that difference and have the required immigration action assessed before relying on the chart as evidence of coverage. Comparing the entity's legal name and registration details as they appear in the approval record against the same details in current corporate records catches the case where a similarly named entity is actually a later, unrelated formation.
Name similarity alone is not reliable, since a group can rename an existing entity, merge two entities into one, or create a new one deliberately using a familiar name, and any of these would leave an internal chart looking unchanged while the underlying legal facts moved. A written confirmation from whoever handled the original approval, stating plainly whether the new entity was covered or needs its own separate filing, resolves the question more reliably than an internal chart ever can, however official that chart looks. Treating the chart as a starting point for that inquiry, rather than as the answer itself, avoids relying on a document that was never designed to confirm coverage on its own.
Recording the date of that confirmation matters too, since group structures change and an answer that was accurate earlier may no longer hold.