No. It helps explain the arrangement, but the actual employment, duties, organizations and timing need assessment.
Identify the relationship throughout the period
Record the legal employer, host, payroll arrangements and work performed. Explain changes rather than assuming every day at an affiliate is qualifying employment or that payroll alone decides the issue. The individual must establish the relevant continuous qualifying year abroad, and specialized knowledge needs its own evidence tied to the proposed U.S. role.
Show the company-specific context through training or project records and let counsel apply the actual legal standard — a concrete, supportable account is more persuasive than a sweeping claim of expertise. Identify the company-specific product, process, procedures, international application, and refinements the worker understands; then show why that command is special or advanced compared with knowledge ordinarily found in the organization or field. What counts is knowledge that is genuinely proprietary or advanced within the organization: an internal formulation, a method developed in-house, an unpublished protocol, a system the company built for itself. The knowledge itself must be special or advanced knowledge of the organisation’s own product, service, research, equipment, techniques, management or procedures — not a skill the wider labour market also teaches, and not seniority.