Use relevant comparisons and work examples showing the applicant’s contribution and understanding. Explain which differences matter operationally and which are superficial.
Avoid an unsupported country-law explanation
If the company chose a feature for commercial reasons, say so. Do not attribute it to an unverified foreign or U.S. rule merely to make the knowledge sound specialized.
Separate the configuration differences the applicant personally decided from those inherited unchanged from a supplier specification, since only the former reflects the applicant's own judgment about the organization's methods. For each difference actually chosen, connect it to a concrete operational consequence, such as a compatibility issue avoided or a failure mode addressed, rather than listing every variant as though each carried the same weight. Where the applicant has trained colleagues on which differences matter and which are cosmetic, a record of that instruction can show the applicant's understanding extends beyond a personal preference to a transferable body of knowledge.
Note where a configuration choice reflects standard industry practice rather than anything specific to the organization, since overstating an ordinary engineering decision as proprietary knowledge can undermine an otherwise accurate account. Keep the explanation focused on consequences a reader can verify rather than on the number of configurations reviewed. A configuration comparison works best as a short, well-labeled reference rather than an exhaustive catalog that nobody will actually read in full technical detail each time.