No automatic conclusion follows. Assess the actual special or advanced knowledge and the evidence of its use in the proposed role. Put the question to the party able to answer it. An employer states what the process is and how widely it is understood among its own staff; the applicant states what they built, repaired or adapted using it. A manual sits on the employer's side of that line and settles neither the nature nor the level of anyone's knowledge.
Avoid a secrecy test
The standard does not universally require undocumented knowledge. Explain the applicant’s experience and the relevant organizational process. Conversely, possessing a manual does not itself establish specialized knowledge.
Consider what the standard actually asks. Special product knowledge with international application, or advanced knowledge of the organization's processes and procedures, describes a relationship between a person and a body of practice rather than a category of document. Knowledge need not be secret, unique or undocumented.
Useful evidence is therefore comparative: what would a competent replacement fail to know on a first day, and who inside the company would have to teach it? An employer able to name that gap has the beginning of a claim. An employer unable to name it often discovers, at this point, that the proposed role is ordinary work described in impressive language.