Have the revised knowledge and duty connection assessed before relying on the earlier proposal. Explain what experience remains relevant.
Mark new learning as future work
Identify what the applicant already knows and what must still be learned. Do not present anticipated training as completed experience. Keep the start date subject to the appropriate immigration process and the actual revised duties.
Separate the core expertise that transfers across methods, such as underlying processes, techniques, or organizational judgment, from surface-level familiarity with a particular tool or approach that does not carry over on its own. Map each component of the applicant's existing knowledge to a specific proposed duty, rather than asserting overall expertise in general terms, so a reviewer can see exactly which pieces of experience support which responsibilities. Identify where the mapping breaks down and treat that gap honestly as something still to be learned, instead of stretching an existing skill to cover unrelated work simply because the two areas share a similar vocabulary.
Ask a colleague familiar with both the earlier and the proposed methods to review the comparison, since an outside check often reveals overlap or gaps that are easy to miss from within a single role. Keep the comparison specific enough that it could be tested against the actual proposed duties, not just described in broad terms that could apply equally well to a different assignment altogether.