As soon as the planner's continuous year is documented and the customer contract or a signed letter of intent exists; allow for adjudication, premium processing if needed, and the possibility of a request for evidence on specialized knowledge.
Specialized-knowledge petitions draw questions; budget time for them
Specialized knowledge requires a fact-specific judgment, so the filing schedule should leave room for a possible request for evidence. A Torbay company that files the week before the mine contract begins has no room to answer one. The prudent timeline is to assemble the methodology evidence, training records and ownership documents while the customer contract is being negotiated; to file as soon as the contract or a binding letter of intent is signed and the planner's year is complete; and to elect premium processing if an earlier response is important. The planner should stay on the Torbay payroll and should not begin the implementation at the mine before approval and admission; a short pre-approval visit limited to permissible visitor activity requires its own review, and running the program is not visitor activity. If a request for evidence arrives, respond with additional internal documents rather than further assertions, since the original petition will already have used the assertions.
Hypothetical example: a Torbay marine-battery testing company promises a U.S. customer that its specialist will begin commissioning next month. Before choosing a start date, the company should identify the completed qualifying year and assemble the method records that could answer an evidence request. The first review produces a filing-ready chronology and a response folder. Starting substantive work early, or treating a customer deadline as proof of eligibility, creates a compliance problem rather than a solution.