Identify suitable evidence and the limits on disclosure with appropriate review. Do not invent examples or treat confidentiality as a reason to leave the knowledge claim unexplained.
Describe a verifiable contribution
A knowledgeable explanation, appropriately handled records or a nonconfidential description may help, depending on the actual evidence. Identify the applicant’s contribution, dates and methods without attributing a whole team’s work to one person. Explain what a record supports and what it omits.
A generic assertion that everything is confidential does not establish specialized knowledge. Hypothetical example: A Trois-Rivières rail-signal configuration analyst worked on a team whose manuals cannot be released to a customer or competitor. Build a controlled description of the analyst’s methods, decisions and contribution, supported by a knowledgeable supervisor and nonconfidential extracts where possible.
The first review should identify what each record proves and what it cannot disclose. A confidentiality claim explains why some detail is limited; it does not prove the underlying specialized knowledge. Avoid copying a generic technology overview or attributing the team’s entire work to one employee.
Put dated training, assignments and work examples in order, then connect them to the proposed role. If the record cannot distinguish ordinary configuration work from the claimed expertise, obtain a more precise internal explanation before filing.