Chapter 6: Documenting Evidence Without Disclosing Confidential Information
Credible supporting evidence can strengthen an engineering award nomination by showing that its most important claims are accurate. However, engineers frequently work with confidential, proprietary, security-sensitive, export-controlled, or commercially valuable information. A strong nomination must balance credibility with the obligation to protect information that should not be disclosed.
No award opportunity justifies violating an employer policy, client agreement, intellectual property right, security restriction, export-control requirement, privacy obligation, or applicable law. Engineers and nominators should determine what they are authorized to use before submitting any supporting materials.
Create a Private Engineering Achievement Record
Begin by creating a private achievement record that is not automatically intended for publication or submission. This record can help preserve important facts while allowing time to determine which information may be shared.
For each engineering achievement, record:
- The project’s beginning and completion dates
- The original problem, need, or opportunity
- The nominee’s position and specific role
- Important designs, decisions, actions, and milestones
- Technical or operational challenges encountered
- Collaborators, departments, clients, or partners involved
- Measurable results and how they were calculated
- The period over which results were measured
- The location of possible supporting evidence
- The person or department authorized to approve disclosure
The private record may identify where an internal report, test result, diagram, photograph, customer statement, or performance record is stored. It should not be treated as permission to submit that material. Its purpose is to help the engineer organize facts and locate evidence that may later be reviewed and approved.
Store the record securely and follow applicable organizational requirements. Do not move restricted information to a personal device, private email account, unapproved cloud service, or public portfolio merely to make it easier to access.
Identify Evidence That Supports Important Claims
Supporting materials should verify the nomination’s central claims rather than merely add volume. If a nomination states that a new system improved reliability, useful evidence might include authorized performance data, approved test results, or a public implementation report.
Possible supporting materials may include:
- Approved technical or operational reports
- Public product or project pages
- Authorized testing and performance results
- Published research or conference papers
- Public patent and intellectual property records
- Approved technical presentations
- Diagrams, charts, or photographs authorized for release
- Credible media coverage
- Customer statements approved by the customer
- Public regulatory, safety, or quality records
- Authorized testimonials from leaders or collaborators
Ten weak or repetitive materials may be less persuasive than two or three sources that directly support the most important claims. Each item should have a clear purpose. A product page might verify the solution’s launch, test data might support a performance claim, and an authorized customer statement might demonstrate successful implementation.
Classify Information Before Using It
Before including any fact or document, consider whether it is:
- Publicly available and approved for external use
- Internal but potentially releasable with authorization
- Confidential, proprietary, restricted, or prohibited from disclosure
Public availability can simplify the review process, but it does not eliminate the need for accuracy. Confirm that a webpage, patent record, publication, news article, or public presentation refers to the same achievement and supports the specific claim being made.
Internal materials require greater care. A document may contain releasable information alongside confidential data. Removing a company logo or client name does not necessarily make the document safe to disclose. Metadata, annotations, filenames, diagrams, screenshots, and background details in photographs may reveal restricted information.
Obtain the Necessary Approvals
Engineers should obtain appropriate authorization before submitting company information, client identities, internal documents, source code, schematics, security architecture, vulnerability details, unpublished research, prototype information, performance records, or commercially sensitive data.
Depending on the organization and achievement, approval may be required from:
- A manager or engineering leader
- Legal or intellectual property counsel
- Information security personnel
- Export-control or compliance specialists
- Corporate communications or public relations
- A research institution or university
- A client, customer, partner, or government agency
Export controls and security restrictions can apply even when information is submitted electronically to an awards organization in another country. Engineers working in aerospace, defense, nuclear energy, advanced computing, telecommunications, cybersecurity, critical infrastructure, or other regulated fields should use particular caution and seek qualified guidance.
Client agreements may also limit how a project, customer name, testimonial, result, or implementation can be described. Obtain authorization directly from the appropriate party rather than assuming that successful work can be publicly discussed.
Use Approved Alternatives When Details Are Restricted
A credible nomination does not always require disclosure of exact technical or commercial details. When authorized, an engineer may use percentages, ranges, indexed results, generalized descriptions, or previously approved public information.
For example, a nomination might state that the solution:
- Reduced processing time by more than 30 percent
- Produced annual savings within an approved range
- Improved reliability across several international facilities
- Supported thousands of users
- Passed applicable testing requirements
- Operated successfully during a defined emergency
These statements should remain truthful and verifiable. Generalizing information should protect sensitive details—not create permission to exaggerate results.
A carefully prepared summary may be safer than submitting a complete internal report. An approved diagram may communicate the general solution without revealing schematics. Public patent records, published research, authorized photographs, or public product information may provide credible evidence without exposing protected material.
Review the Complete Submission
Before submitting, review the nomination and every supporting item as one package. Check names, dates, numbers, client references, technical descriptions, links, attachments, filenames, image backgrounds, and document metadata. Confirm that approvals are documented and that public links remain accessible.
Evidence should make an engineering achievement more credible, not create legal, professional, commercial, or security risks. When uncertain, withhold the information until the appropriate person has reviewed it.
Review what evidence you can appropriately and lawfully use before beginning a nomination. Find current Globee Awards submission and supporting-material requirements at GlobeeAwards.com