Specific company records tied to his work—such as process specifications, fixture designs, qualification records, training material and revision histories—can show why his knowledge is special or advanced rather than commonly held.
Authored artefacts beat adjectives
A conclusory letter describing an employee as uniquely skilled carries little weight. Specific records tied to the employee’s work can help show why the claimed knowledge is special or advanced, although the evidence need not be unique or proprietary to the company. Examples include a fixturing standard he wrote with a revision log showing his decisions, a customer's process qualification that names the method and the person responsible for it, an internal training package built from his work, and photographs or drawings of tooling the company designed. Where documents are commercially sensitive, redact the figures and explain the redaction rather than leaving the document out. Add a short comparison table that sets each relevant item beside its ordinary industry equivalent, so the distinction the classification depends on is visible without the officer having to construct it.
Hypothetical example: a cybersecurity-platform company wants to transfer the employee who designed its incident-triage workflow. A first review produces redacted workflow diagrams, version history, internal training assignments and a comparison with public tools. The record must show what the employee knows and why it matters to this employer, while protecting genuine trade secrets. If a critical claim can be proved only by saying it is confidential, add a declaration explaining the controls and a redacted exhibit that demonstrates the point. Unsupported secrecy labels often leave an officer unable to verify the alleged distinction.