Original research is not enough. For this EB1A criterion, the important question is whether the researcher made an original scientific or scholarly contribution and whether that contribution was of major significance to the field.
Identify the actual scientific, technical or scholarly contribution. Avoid describing an entire career or simply listing publications.
The evidence should demonstrate that the contribution affected the field rather than merely benefiting the applicant or one employer.
This may establish originality, but it says little about why the method was important to the field.
Identify who adopted it, what problem it solved, how broadly it was used and what independent documentation confirms that impact.
Not by itself. The evidence must also establish that an original contribution was of major significance to the field.
A patent can establish an invention, but additional evidence may be needed to demonstrate significant influence, implementation or use.
They can be relevant. Article specific citation evidence and appropriate context may help show that the field regarded particular work as important.
Detailed letters can provide valuable context, particularly when important factual claims are supported by objective documentation.