With the customer contract, an affiliate assignment letter and the project plan, each showing that the affiliate directs and pays the developer and that the customer is buying a system, not a worker.
Three documents that keep the placement on the right side of the offsite rule
Hypothetical example: The first document is the contract between the U.S. affiliate and the hatchery. It should describe a deliverable, the installed and commissioned monitoring system, with acceptance criteria, rather than a number of developer-hours at the customer's disposal. The second is an assignment letter from the affiliate to the Portugal Cove-St. Philip's developer setting out who assigns tasks, who approves time, who evaluates performance and who pays; it should name an affiliate supervisor and state that the customer does not direct the work. The third is a project plan showing the installation milestones, the expected weeks on site and the return to affiliate premises or to Canada when commissioning ends. If the hatchery will also ask the developer to help with unrelated equipment, that request should be declined or the scope renegotiated, because work outside the petitioner's product is what turns a specialized-knowledge transfer into labour for hire.
Hypothetical example: a municipal water-meter analytics company seeks to transfer the specialist who maintains a proprietary anomaly-detection model. Build the file in three folders: relationship documents, qualifying-employment records, and proof of the model's specialized features and planned use. The strongest technical record may be a controlled design document showing the specialist's access level and revisions, supported by customer implementation materials with sensitive details redacted where appropriate. A résumé alone describes the person; internal records demonstrate why the claimed knowledge is particular to the company.