Discuss training records, permitted project descriptions, internal qualifications and other evidence that accurately explains the knowledge. Have the company identify what can be shared and what requires special handling.
Choose records that answer the actual question
A reviewer needs to understand the process and the person’s experience, not receive an unexplained collection of sensitive files. Ask which examples establish the material facts and how confidential details should be handled. Do not invent a public substitute or remove so much context that the evidence no longer supports the claim. Coordinate the employer and legal reviewer before submission.
Through the document-control system’s revision history, draft files with metadata, review comments, meeting records and a statement from the quality director confirming authorship and the manager’s purely approving role. Internal design documents, architecture decision records, runbooks and implementation guides naming the employee as author or maintainer, significant incident write-ups, and code ownership records where policy allows sharing them. Provide the table of contents of the internal manual, sample pages of the schedule library with commercially sensitive values obscured, the calibration procedure written for the group's own sensors, and the internal defect taxonomy.