Over the years I've spent writing application materials, I've stepped into quite a few pitfalls. Today I'll focus on just one section—the "Proposed Collaborating Expert Profile" in applications for academician workstations and expert workstations.
This section looks inconspicuous, but it is actually quite delicate. Review experts may not know the expert you've invited, but they certainly know how to verify whether an introduction is true or false. If it's written vaguely, the credibility of the entire application drops with it; if it's written solidly, this section can instead become a plus.
First, let me explain the material structure as I understand it. This passage should contain only two types of material:
The first type: public profile. Résumé, education, work experience, academic organization appointments—the "who he is" part—all taken from the public profile, without adding a single sentence of your own elaboration.
The second type: project details. Verified research projects: grant number, year, type, host institution, funding, keywords—"what he has done," verifiable item by item.
The tool I use is MuchSci's talent profile. There is one feature I especially like: project details go through "exact matching of the principal investigator's name + verification of the public institution," and those that fail verification are marked "pending verification." In other words, every item you can include is backed by a public record at its source—if reviewers want to check, you can produce the evidence at any time.
As for structure, I've summarized a three-paragraph formula that has never failed me:
The first paragraph: who he is. The résumé and appointments in the profile establish the expert's identity, cleanly and concisely.
The second paragraph: what he has done. List the verified project details one by one. This paragraph is the core—being able to write out the grant number is stronger than ten sentences saying "domestically leading."
The third paragraph: why he fits this station. Note that this paragraph must also be grounded in public data: use directional keywords and field affiliations to explain the fit with this station's needs, rather than writing empty phrases like "superb expertise and well-known in the industry."
After writing the three paragraphs, read through them and try deleting all the adjectives—if the paragraphs still hold up after deletion, it means you've written facts; if they become empty after deletion, it means your material needs another round of rework.
The essence of application materials is to let reviewers establish trust in the shortest possible time. And the unit of trust is never "impressive"—it is "verifiable."