It can provide context, but explain what parts relate to the applicant and how reliable records establish their involvement. The report does not establish the individual knowledge claim by itself.
Connect the report to specific responsibilities
Identify authorship, assignments, testing records or other evidence of the applicant’s role. Ask knowledgeable colleagues to confirm facts within their experience rather than repeat generic praise. Preserve the report’s original attribution. A new explanatory letter may clarify the history, but should not be presented as a contemporaneous record that did not exist.
Hypothetical example: a fleet-routing software company wants to send an analyst who maintains a confidential optimization library, but the only available document is a newly drafted manager letter. Search for contemporaneous proof: repository permissions, release notes, training agendas, incident reports, internal presentations, quality records, and project assignments. Explain any confidentiality limits while still giving enough detail to show what knowledge is company-specific and how the person obtained it. Pair those records with ownership documents and evidence that the foreign and U.S. entities are both conducting business. Do not substitute a generic non-disclosure agreement for evidence that the employee actually holds the claimed knowledge. For each important assertion, identify the original record that settles it and its date. If documents show a different job title, explain the naming convention rather than silently changing it. Assemble the foreign role, specialized knowledge, proposed role, and organizational relationship as separate proof streams. That sequence exposes gaps early and prevents one broad letter from carrying every eligibility element.