Not automatically. Explain what was learned and applied and how it meets the relevant standard for the proposed work. Several rotations can supply the evidence, though the conclusion has to be argued rather than inferred. What must be shown is knowledge that is special or advanced within the organisation and genuinely applied in the proposed duties; breadth of exposure describes a career, and it does not become the legal standard by being long.
Distinguish exposure from demonstrated knowledge
Identify the applicant’s actual responsibilities and contributions. A rotation list may explain the history but does not by itself establish the level of knowledge. Have the other L requirements assessed on their own evidence.
Hypothetical example: a biostatistics programmer spends periods with three analysis groups, and her file lists all three with their dates. Her adviser asks a narrower question, namely what she can do that a competent newly hired programmer could not, and the answer turns out to be the organisation's validated legacy macro library, which she rewrote and now maintains. That single fact, with the change records supporting it, does more than the full itinerary did.
Put the same question to each rotation and discard the ones that yield nothing. An account naming one capability and its evidence outperforms a complete one naming only places. The library is the claim; the rotations only explain how she came to hold it.