Questions regarding employment history

Just my thoughts: no need to overthink this.

Last I looked, the job history called for year and month, and if every month is included, it is included. Your first example does that, showing what employment you had up to March 2001, and what employment you had beginning April 2011.

And there is a good reason to avoid putting "unemployed" in the work history if you can do so honestly (which it looks to me like you can, at least for that March-April 2011 span): it is a risk indicator that may trigger RQ** (probably likely to trigger RQ - we just do not know what adjustments have been made to how the risk indicators are applied).



Notes:
**Technically the risk indicator is any declaration of unemployment plus any reported travel outside Canada during the relevant four years; practically speaking this covers almost everyone who declares a period of unemployment. When first implemented this was, it appears, definitely mechanically applied, so any report of being unemployed triggered RQ. CIC has made adjustments but we do not know what they are, so we do not know to what extent this is still a mechanically applied risk indicator.

Perhaps it is not certain that CIC has made substantive adjustments to how the specific risk indicators are applied, but it is very likely that they have (they planned to last fall). We just do not have much information at all about what adjustments they made. CIC holds their cards very close to the vest, so to say, very reluctant to publicly disclose RQ related decision-making practices.

We were fortunate that a participant here shared a copy of the File Requirements Checklist, obtained with an ATIP request, which includes the specific "risk indicators" identified for the level one screening in Sydney. Additionally, some of the risk indicators are also the subject in a variety of internal CIC communications obtained and shared here by others (akella has, in particular shared a lot of internal CIC information obtained by ATI requests).

We know just about enough to be aware how much in the dark we are.

Beyond that, as your question alludes, we can infer there are many factors which are not formal, checklist criteria but which can influence the decision about whether or not to issue RQ. Your question, for example, might fall under the risk indicator of "suspicious residence." That said, I have no idea if having moved often is a factor at all, let alone how much of one if it is. People do move. And new immgrants in particular tend to move around some until they get settled. So it should not be too significant of a factor. Context, overall circumstances, probably matter in this regard.

Bottom-line: there are too many angles to try to figure them all out, to get too caught up in trying to insure against the prospect of RQ; mostly just be sure you meet the qualifications, that your actual physical presence is comfortably more than 1095 days in the relevant four years, and be as accurate and complete in the application as possible (in particular, get the declarations of absences as close to perfectly right as you can). We are who we are, and being real people, that tends to include some warts and wrinkles and complex life-stories and varied life-styles, so we go into the process carrying the baggage of who we are and that's the best we can do.

I do not know to what extent you would need to document reported work abroad, if given RQ. Technically the RQ asks for documentation covering the four years, but I would not worry about not submitting document to prove work abroad. I mean, if you fail to prove you were working outside Canada that is not going to diminish your case. But, sure, it is a good idea to be maintaining good records overall about work, addresses, and travel.   

It is always appreciated when someone does not rely on what I (or anyone else here) posts, and makes an effort to confirm the information for himself or herself through other (hopefully reliable) sources.

And, reporting back here about what was learned is also very much appreciated.