Have the revised work and relevant knowledge assessed before relying on the earlier plan. Explain what remains applicable and what the applicant still needs to learn. Separate two questions the platform change puts together: whether the knowledge claim survives, and whether the proposed duties still exist. A migration can leave the second intact while hollowing out the first, and the file then has to be rebuilt on whatever remains true.
Revisit the actual knowledge-to-duty link
Identify changes in processes, responsibilities and supervision. Do not assume the same job title preserves the original basis for the transfer. Keep the proposed start subject to the appropriate immigration steps and the actual revised evidence.
Compare the old and new environments capability by capability rather than at the level of the product name. Knowledge of the retired system may carry forward where the employer's own processes, reconciliation rules and integrations were rebuilt around the same logic, and may not where vendor defaults simply replaced them. Ask who is leading the migration, because an applicant running it generates fresh evidence while an applicant merely affected by it loses the old evidence.
Sequence the filing against the migration honestly. A petition describing work on a system the employer has already retired invites a question nobody wants to face late, and a short delay to re-document the role costs less than the alternative.