Have the actual qualifying period assessed. A proposed change should not be presented as work already completed or as an automatic cure for an earlier gap.
Recalculate from the genuine dates
Identify when the arrangement changes and what employment actually follows. Review the relevant period and proposed U.S. start with the adviser.
Do not substitute a preferred anniversary for the applicable timing analysis. Whoever proposes the change should be the one to date it. A manager offering to move the applicant to full time is describing a future intention; the petition describes employment already performed, and an adjudicator reads the second rather than the first.
Record when the new arrangement takes effect, who authorised it, and which entity employs the applicant afterwards, then treat the qualifying-year question as a fresh calculation from those genuine dates rather than a repair of the earlier one. Note as well that the year abroad must generally fall within the three years preceding the petition, so a period spent in the United States, or a long gap, changes what remains available to count. The applicant controls only disclosure here; the timing analysis belongs to the adviser, and the filing decision belongs to the petitioner.
Hypothetical example: an irrigation contractor's affiliate raises a designer to full time in March, and the petitioner postpones filing rather than describing that March change as though it had applied the previous year.