No. Describe the knowledge actually held and its relevance to the proposed work. A false sole-authorship claim is not a substitute for evidence of specialized knowledge.
Explain the contribution within the team
Identify the component, decisions and applications the applicant handled, and what knowledge they gained. Distinguish their work from colleagues’ contributions without minimizing or inflating either. The standard concerns the actual special or advanced knowledge and the qualifying transfer, not merely who receives credit in a project summary.
Hypothetical example: a water-treatment manufacturer seeks to transfer a process specialist who knows the company’s internal sensor-calibration sequence and error codes. Begin by defining the knowledge precisely: its internal name, how it was acquired, which products use it, who else has access, and why the U.S. role needs it. General engineering ability or familiarity with commercially available equipment is not enough merely because the employee is skilled. The strongest records are often existing training materials, version-controlled procedures, project assignments, and evidence of the person’s contribution. Compare the overseas duties with the planned U.S. tasks, identifying where the knowledge will be applied. The person generally needs one uninterrupted qualifying year abroad in the three years before filing. Do not broaden a team’s collective know-how into a personal claim. If the role is expected to become ordinary production work after setup, say so and assess the filing strategy honestly. The review should result in a fact-specific explanation rather than an adjective-heavy description of expertise.