Explain the actual differences, relevant existing knowledge and planned duties for assessment. Identify new learning without presenting it as already acquired.
Review the specific assignment before relying on the portfolio
The same type of production may use different internal methods. Connect the evidence to the actual U.S. work rather than assuming a prior credit supports every new project.
Obtain both procedures and compare them formally. A written gap analysis — clause, how the origin site handles it, how the destination site handles it, whether the applicant’s knowledge transfers — turns a vague worry into a document that supports the assignment. It also shows where knowledge does not transfer, which is worth stating rather than concealing, because a claim that everything transfers is the one a reader tests hardest.
Hypothetical example: a receiving and release procedure at the destination site uses different hold categories and a different escalation path, while the underlying sampling and retention method is the one the applicant already works to; the assignment then becomes explainable as applying an established method inside an unfamiliar shell. Where the destination process does not exist yet and the applicant would help write it, say so plainly and date the plan, since work still to be created is assessed differently from knowledge already held. Revision numbers and effective dates are what make the comparison checkable.