The credential alone does not decide the case. Assess the actual special or advanced knowledge and the complete transfer requirements. Turn the question around: the useful comparison is not certificate against no certificate, but this applicant against a comparably certified colleague. What can this person do, or explain, that the other could not without substantial retraining? That gap is the claim being made.
Explain what goes beyond the credential
Identify the relevant organizational knowledge, how it was acquired and its use in the proposed work. Do not claim that ordinary platform proficiency automatically qualifies, or that publicly available technology automatically excludes a supported knowledge claim. Set the general and the internal side by side in the same sentence wherever possible, since the contrast is what carries the argument.
A vendor course teaches the standard configuration; the employer's implementation departs from that standard in specific, documentable ways, and those departures are where any specialized knowledge lives. Name them concretely: reconciliation rules written for the employer's own workflow, interfaces built to systems the vendor does not support, exceptions the operating procedures carve out. Hypothetical example: an applicant maintains the tolerance rules an aviation parts inventory management system applies when a serialized component returns from overhaul.
The certificate covers the base product; those tolerance rules exist nowhere outside this employer.