It can be assessed for what it demonstrates about the applicant’s relevant knowledge. It does not automatically establish specialized knowledge or the entire transfer.
Explain present relevance
Identify what was learned and why the proposed duties use it. Do not rely on the amount of past effort alone. The applicable knowledge standard, company relationship and employment history remain separate questions.
The finding that recurs is a gap of relevance: the account explains what was learned three years ago and stops there, leaving the reader to guess how the U.S. assignment uses it. The record that closes that gap is the proposed statement of work for the U.S.
role, read beside the decision record from the abandoned approach, because the overlap between them is the argument. Where the statement of work does not touch the earlier learning, the knowledge is real and the connection is not, which is worth discovering before filing rather than in a later request for evidence. Put the standard in plain terms: the knowledge must be special knowledge of the employer’s product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management or other interests and its application in international markets, or an advanced level of knowledge of the organization’s processes and procedures, and secrecy or uniqueness is not universally required.
Hypothetical example: a reinsurance analyst’s rejected catastrophe-loading method resurfaces because the U.S. statement of work asks for exactly that comparison on a new book.