Not by itself. Explain the actual special or advanced organizational knowledge and how the proposed duties use it. Volume of ordinary work is not the complete analysis. The useful pivot is comparability. Ask what the receiving operation would have to do if the applicant were unavailable: hire locally and train for a period, or rebuild a method it does not have. Those two answers lead to different petitions, and the second is the one this category was written for. Settle which one the facts support before the letter describes anything. A file that never asks the question tends to answer it badly.
Identify the knowledge behind the assessment
Describe relevant internal criteria, experience and application. The applicant’s reliability or broad site exposure may provide context without establishing the actual knowledge standard. Two conditions sit underneath the knowledge question and neither is satisfied by volume.
One continuous year of qualifying employment abroad within the preceding three years must be shown, with an entity related to the receiving company. The knowledge itself must be special or advanced within that organization, and the proposed duties must actually use it. Where site visits were numerous but each followed the same routine, describe instead the situations where the applicant departed from routine and why the method allowed it.
That is the material a reviewer can weigh. Ask the employer which of those episodes it would put in writing.