How I handled evidence that was strong but slightly outside my primary claimed field

Had a genuinely impressive piece of evidence from earlier in my career, in a field adjacent to but not identical to what I was primarily claiming extraordinary ability in. Had to decide whether including it strengthened or muddied my overall narrative. What I concluded: I included it, but framed it explicitly as part of a coherent career trajectory into my current field, rather than presenting it disconnected or, worse, trying to pretend it was squarely within my primary field when it wasn't quite. A brief narrative bridge explaining how that earlier work connected to and informed my current expertise made it a genuine asset rather than a confusing tangent. The principle I took from this: strong evidence from an adjacent area doesn't need to be excluded just because it's not perfectly on-target, but it does need honest, explicit framing about how it fits into your overall story — presented without that framing, it risks reading as scattered rather than as part of a coherent trajectory.