Explain the differences and the relevance of the applicant’s existing knowledge. Identify what must still be learned and have the actual duties assessed.
Review the real program before setting the transfer date
Do not assume similar subject matter means identical internal processes. Connect the evidence to the actual proposed work and distinguish confirmed duties from a future training or redesign plan. Map the two frameworks against each other before fixing a date.
Put the U.S. process and the applicant's process in two columns, mark each step as identical, comparable or absent, and note who at the U.S. site performs the steps in the first column today.
The absent rows are the ones that justify a transfer; the identical rows invite the question of why local staff cannot do the work. Hypothetical example: a company harmonising two medical device complaint-handling procedures expects the transferred employee to apply the existing method for two quarters and then help build a combined one; the file should present the first period as the proposed duties and the second as a plan, because only the first rests on knowledge the employee already holds. Where the U.S.
framework is still being written, that fact belongs in the file rather than a duty description that assumes it is finished. Date the comparison table and run it again if the U.S. process changes before the transfer, because the rows that justified it may no longer be the absent ones.