No automatic conclusion follows. Explain the knowledge acquired and how it relates to the actual U.S. assignment and L-1B standard.
Show continuity and change
Identify which processes remain relevant and which have been replaced. The evidence should support the present claim rather than rely on a shared product name. Have the complete transfer requirements assessed separately.
The reasoning that gets rejected runs: the applicant knows version four, the assignment involves version seven, version seven grew out of version four, therefore the applicant qualifies. Each step is plausible and the chain still proves nothing, because it never states what the applicant knows that the receiving team lacks. Reverse the order.
Start from the U.S. assignment's hardest recurring task, ask who could perform it today, and identify what the applicant brings to it. Hypothetical example: a field service specialist maintained an imaging system's calibration workflow through two hardware revisions; the calibration logic carried forward, while the control software was rewritten by a different team the specialist never worked with.
That split is the answer to the question — part of the knowledge transfers and part does not — and stating it plainly is stronger than claiming the whole platform. There is no rule that a shared version lineage settles the standard.