No. The actual knowledge and proposed work must meet the applicable standard.
Describe the training substance
Explain what the applicant knows, how it was acquired and why it matters to the assignment. A training title alone does not answer those questions. Hypothetical example: a ceramic-glaze manufacturer seeking to send the technician who developed its firing-profile library.
At a first review, the first review should identify the company-specific knowledge, how the employee acquired it, and why the U.S. task needs it. The records most likely to settle that point are controlled specifications, training records, development logs, project examples, foreign employment evidence, and corporate documents.
Sequence the work deliberately: define the knowledge before drafting the assignment, then compare the final work plan with the evidence. A common error is describing ordinary technical competence as specialized simply because the employee has more experience than peers; that error matters because a conclusion based on incomplete or mismatched facts may not carry to the final arrangement. Write down the decision that remains after the review, the fact that could change it, and the record needed to resolve that fact.
This creates a usable file rather than a collection of documents that cannot be connected to the actual plan.