No. Recruiting history does not substitute for the employee’s actual capabilities and US duties.
Use relevant knowledge evidence
A labour shortage is not a universal L-1B requirement. Avoid building the file around an invented recruitment test while leaving the real expertise unexplained.
The company's own artefacts: the proprietary code library with its revision history, commissioning procedures, fault-diagnosis documentation, internal training records showing who has been qualified on them, and a duty description tied to those specific items. Use training records, permitted project summaries and internal role documentation that explain the knowledge accurately, and have the company identify what needs careful handling before anything is submitted. Distinguish a standard introductory manual from the expertise claimed, without assuming that documented or shared knowledge is automatically ineligible. A genuine training history may remain relevant, but the proposed role still needs an accurate current explanation. Ask the business to provide a plain-language comparison supported by its own records: release notes, process materials, training history, or examples of decisions the employee made. The usual error is submitting a certificate of fluency and a translated manual while omitting how the employee learned and applied the petitioning group’s knowledge.