Explain whether the underlying process knowledge remains relevant and how the U.S. work changes. Do not assume either that all knowledge is lost or that the old examples describe the new system without adjustment.
Update the link between old evidence and current duties
Identify the transition work and any new learning required. Have material changes reviewed before relying on a filing account tied to the earlier identifiers. Keep a mapping document that ties earlier identifiers, system names, or reference codes used in prior evidence to their current equivalents, so a reviewer can follow the same underlying process across the transition rather than seeing what looks like an unrelated new system.
Preserve copies of the original materials alongside the updated versions instead of replacing them outright, since the comparison itself demonstrates continuity better than either version alone. Identify precisely which elements changed only in name and which reflect an actual change in the underlying work, because conflating the two overstates how much genuinely changed and can make a stable process look like an entirely different undertaking. Ask whoever managed the transition to confirm, in writing, how the old and new identifiers correspond, rather than relying on an informal or remembered mapping that nobody else can independently verify.
Update the supporting narrative to reference both sets of identifiers during the transition period, so nothing in the file appears disconnected from what came before it.