An inaccurate title can distort the evidence. Translate the actual role and explain the work rather than choosing words solely because they sound specialized.
Preserve what the original record says
The case must establish the employee’s real knowledge and proposed duties. A translation should not turn participation into leadership, routine use into design or familiarity into advanced understanding without supporting facts.
Explain whether the account concerns special product knowledge and international application or advanced organizational process or procedure knowledge. Describe what makes the knowledge relevant to the company and proposed work. The claim has to rest on what this employer does with the equipment that others do not. Verb-based, task-specific language usually carries more weight than an elevated title, because it lets a reviewer picture the actual work performed rather than infer significance from wording. Comparing the translated title against the foreign organization's own internal job description or organizational chart can catch drift that crept in during translation, where a coordinating role becomes director or a support function becomes lead without any change in the underlying duties. Mismatched titles across submitted documents raise more doubt than a modest, accurately translated title ever would, since inconsistency invites questions about every other statement in the record. Consistency between payroll records, prior filings, and the narrative description protects credibility far more effectively than embellishment.