No. Describe planned work as planned and explain the knowledge the applicant actually possesses now. Future participation cannot rewrite the prior experience record.
Align the proposed role with established experience
Identify what the employee would contribute based on existing knowledge and what remains to be learned. Have the actual assignment assessed before relying on a future development milestone as if it established present eligibility. Hypothetical example: a monitoring systems engineer is scheduled to co-develop the next release after arriving, and a draft file describes that future work as though it were experience already held.
Separate the two on the page: what the applicant knows today, and what the applicant would build once there. The first speaks to eligibility; the second describes the assignment. Where the present knowledge is genuinely thin, the honest options are to wait until the applicant has done the work, to consider whether a different employee holds the knowledge, or to reconsider the classification, and each is better identified early than late.
Build the timetable from real dates: when the qualifying employment abroad began and ended, when the corporate records will be ready, when the employer needs the role filled. The five-year maximum for this classification also runs once the employee is admitted, so a plan depending on a long future development cycle should be checked against the time the classification actually allows.