No. Preserve accurate records and explain what they establish. Removing evidence to support a misleading exclusivity claim would make the account unreliable.
Describe the training honestly
Identify the curriculum, level, dates and applicant’s role. Explain whether attendance involved introductory instruction or applied mastery without inventing distinctions. Link the training history to examples of the applicant’s actual work. A truthful account can distinguish different levels of knowledge; a claim that nobody else knows the system should not contradict the company’s own records.
Hypothetical example: A cloud-security analyst completed internal courses, but the records show only attendance and not the incident-response work cited in the transfer request. Start with the actual curriculum, evaluations, access history, work samples where appropriate, manager accounts, and U.S. assignment description. The first review should produce an evidence map that distinguishes exposure to information from advanced application of it. Ask the company to preserve dated records instead of recreating a training history from memory. Where confidentiality limits disclosure, explain the limitation and provide accurate contextual evidence rather than unsupported superlatives. Sequence the proof from company-specific knowledge to foreign use and then to the U.S. need. A common error is treating a certificate as proof of mastery when it merely records attendance, or overlooking records showing peers received the same level of instruction.
Link each item to a period of actual work, not merely an employment title. That makes it easier to see whether the asserted knowledge predated the proposed transfer and is relevant to it.