Update the explanation with the actual expected duties and identify what changed. A past sample should not be presented as representative of a different assignment.
Review the current role before relying on old estimates
Explain why the workload changed and who performs the operational tasks now. Have material changes assessed rather than adjusting percentages alone to preserve an earlier conclusion.
A dated departure log can support recapture analysis, but it does not erase time merely because a project lasted longer than expected. Evidence gathered to document the completed foreign qualifying year answers a different question from evidence describing the proposed United States role, and a change in what the position looks like going forward does not retroactively change what actually happened during that earlier year. Keep the record supporting the foreign year exactly as it was documented at the time, rather than revising it to sound more consistent with duties that have since evolved, since the qualifying year has to reflect what genuinely occurred rather than a narrative reshaped for convenience. Build a separate, current description of the proposed role that stands on its own evidence, including who the applicant will direct and what decisions the position will carry, without borrowing language from the older sample simply because it already exists in a usable form. Ask whether the shift between the sampled period and the proposed role is substantial enough that an adviser should review both descriptions together for consistency, even though each is evaluated on its own terms. Treat any gap between the two accounts as something to explain honestly rather than to smooth over by adjusting the older record after the fact.