Begin with whichever element has the clearest evidence gap: qualifying foreign employment, the corporate relationship, or the proposed managerial or executive duties. Do not assume the company records are complete merely because both businesses use the same brand. Rank the unresolved facts before commissioning a full application package.
Test each element against the other two
Read the elements together. Qualifying employment abroad may involve managerial, executive or specialized-knowledge duties; the proposed US L-1A work must satisfy the managerial or executive requirements. New-office cases add particular requirements.
A strong duty statement cannot repair an absent qualifying corporate relationship. Identify what each document proves, which facts remain uncertain and where counsel must assess the history before drafting a filing. A practical way to rank them is to ask, of each element, what would have to be true for it to fail, and then whether anyone has checked.
The corporate relationship fails if ownership does not connect the two entities in a qualifying way, which a registry search answers in days. The year abroad fails if the employing entity was wrong for part of it, which payroll answers in an afternoon. The duties element fails on judgement rather than on a record, which is why it takes longest and why it should not be started until the other two are settled.
Ranking by that test usually produces a different order from ranking by intuition.