A detailed statement from the firm describing the proprietary methodology, her training in it and the client deliverables that depended on it, corroborated by internal training records and work product she authored.
The firm’s own account of its methods carries the argument
USCIS decides specialized knowledge by asking whether the employee’s knowledge is of the organization’s own products, processes or procedures and whether it is distinct or advanced compared with others. A job title such as senior analyst proves nothing on its own. The decisive evidence is a statement from a partner explaining what the firm’s evaluation framework is, how it differs from methods used generally in policy consulting, how long it takes to train someone in it, and what the Cantley analyst did with it during the eight months in question.
That statement should be corroborated by the internal training curriculum, dated records showing she completed or delivered it, and examples of client reports she authored using the method, with confidential content summarized. Keep the promotion letter and both job descriptions alongside so the two capacities are clearly delineated by date. Hypothetical example: a precision-optics distributor says its transferee knows every major customer, but its letters never identify an internal process or authority.
Familiarity with clients is not enough by itself. The first review should obtain contemporaneous manuals, training records, and a statement that ties the employee’s knowledge to the organization’s own methods. A vague declaration written for filing fails because it gives USCIS no way to test what is distinct about the work.