Include the personnel and relationships needed to explain the real role, with accurate entity, location and duty information. Supporting records should substantiate the chart. Hiding foreign personnel or moving them into a US box can distort how the work is actually performed.
Add context to reporting lines
Explain direct reporting, functional oversight and any shared-service arrangement. Identify the authority the applicant exercises rather than relying solely on line styles. The chart should work with evidence of duties, staffing and corporate relationships; it cannot prove every requirement on its own.
Assemble entity records, ownership documents, foreign and U.S. job descriptions, payroll, organizational charts and a chronology of employment and travel. The first review should label the fact each document proves; an organization chart cannot prove foreign payroll, and a tax filing cannot describe managerial authority.
Reconcile dates before filing rather than leaving the decision-maker to compare inconsistent documents. Hypothetical example: A Canadian musical-instrument distributor wants to move its operations head to a U.S. affiliate.
Corporate records show common ownership, but the chart names U.S. contractors as direct reports even though a third party supervises them. Contracts, invoices and management agreements can clarify the arrangement.
The problem is presenting a diagram as evidence of control when the underlying records show a different reporting reality. Use a single entity chart with legal names, jurisdictions, owners and ownership percentages, then reconcile it to tax and corporate records. The first review should flag any missing transfer, merger or ownership change.
A gap in corporate history can undermine an otherwise detailed duties presentation.