Label the version and date, identify the applicant’s contribution and explain which part connects to the proposed work. Do not mix old and current evidence without context.
Prepare a concise continuity comparison
Separate unchanged processes, redesigned elements and matters the applicant has not yet learned. Use genuine examples of application. The comparison is an explanatory tool, not a replacement for the underlying employment and knowledge evidence.
Organize the material by the applicant's own timeline of exposure to each version rather than strictly by product release order, since the two sequences do not always match and a reviewer needs to see when the applicant actually encountered each change. Where the applicant supported two versions at once during a transition period, describe that overlap directly instead of presenting the versions as though they followed one another cleanly. Flag any version the applicant never worked on directly, even if it appears in the product's history, so the file does not imply knowledge the applicant does not actually hold.
Keep each version's entry tied to a genuine example of the applicant's own work on it, since an index built only from release notes describes the product rather than the applicant's experience with it. A version the applicant only heard about secondhand belongs in the product history, not in the personal record of what was actually learned and applied over time.