Timing depends on how quickly the employer can produce a clear duty breakdown and, if needed, adjust the role's responsibilities. A role that is already clearly analyst-weighted moves faster than one requiring negotiation or a different classification approach.
Treat the classification question as its own milestone
Set a date for the employer to provide a duty breakdown, then a separate date for deciding whether the role needs adjusting or a different approach entirely. Only once that is resolved should the broader filing and travel timeline be built. An employer pushing for a quick start should understand that filing on an inaccurate duty description creates more risk later than taking the time to clarify it now.
Add one further step to that sequence, which is the one most often left unowned. Once the boundary is settled, someone should be responsible for checking that it stays settled, because roles in technical teams migrate toward whatever the project needs and the migration is rarely announced. A promotion, a reassignment, the departure of a colleague whose work then lands on this desk — each can shift the balance without anybody treating it as a matter requiring advice.
Agree who compares the actual work against the agreed description annually, and what prompts an earlier look. Hypothetical example: a structural engineer's role acquires a bid-management remit in its second year after a colleague leaves, and because the annual comparison had an owner the change is examined while options remain rather than at a renewal, when they have narrowed considerably.