No. The general maximum concerns the applicable cumulative stay, not a separate allowance for every project. Have the actual prior history and relevant rules assessed.
Review the applicant’s history rather than project names
A new scope or business deadline does not erase time already used. Collect the relevant records and assess available time alongside the proposed specialized-knowledge duties and other requirements. The general maximum for specialized-knowledge L stay is five years, subject to the applicable rules and the individual facts.
Reason outwards from the person rather than inwards from the project: the history belongs to the individual and travels with them between projects, between employers inside the qualifying group, and between job titles. A useful discipline is to write the analysis without naming the project at all — if the reasoning still holds, it rests on the person’s record; if it stops making sense, the argument was leaning on the project’s novelty. What has to be true before a later project is worth scoping is that the reviewed record leaves enough time for the work as described, and that the proposed duties independently satisfy the specialized-knowledge and qualifying-employment requirements.
Neither follows from the other, and a business deadline supplies neither. Write the two conclusions as separate sentences in the file, so a reader can see which one is contested. A single combined statement hides whichever half is weaker, and that is the half a reviewer will look for first.