Provide both and reconcile material differences. The more detailed scope can help explain the work, but it should not silently replace the employer’s account.
Identify who confirms each part of the role
Ask the employer and customer to clarify deliverables, supervision, location and duration within their knowledge. Keep the signed agreements and proposed support letter consistent with the real assignment. Flag unresolved differences rather than selecting whichever description appears more favorable. A title cannot resolve contradictory evidence about the actual duties.
Hypothetical example: A food-formulation scientist receives an employer letter that omits a customer protocol requiring plant-floor sampling. Start with the executed offer, protocol, weekly duty allocation, and supervisor statement. Record the employer, worksite, term, compensation, and professional outputs exactly as they appear, then identify every conflict. The file must independently prove Canadian or Mexican citizenship, the listed profession’s prescribed credential, and a genuine employer-directed assignment rather than self-employment through an applicant-controlled U.S. business. A Canadian may request TN classification during inspection, while an employer may file Form I-129 where appropriate. The document decision is whether the protocol reflects incidental sampling within the scientific role or a materially different production assignment. Obtain a truthful clarification from the parties; do not omit the protocol or rewrite its date. Keep the credential evaluation and any state licence evidence tied to their separate purposes. Once the records describe one coherent role, index each document by the fact it proves and preserve the version actually presented.