Sure, why not?
As per section A11.2 (source: https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/permanent-residence/express-entry/assessing-electronic-application-on-section-a11-2.html)
Requirement to maintain the CRS score
Ministerial Instructions given under the authority of
paragraph A10.3(1)(h) determine the basis on which Express Entry candidates are ranked. Under
section A11.2, applicants are required to maintain the qualifications that led them to be included in the top-ranked candidates to be issued an ITA in a particular round of invitations.
When a round of invitations occurs, IRCC invites the top-ranked candidates in the Express Entry pool to apply for permanent residence. Candidates in the pool are ranked based on self-declared qualifications in their profile and according to IRCC’s CRS. After each round of invitations, IRCC publishes the
score of the lowest-ranked candidate to receive an ITA in that round of invitations.
An applicant’s CRS score is automatically recorded in GCMS at the time when
- their ITA is issued; and
- their e-APR is submitted.
At the time of the e-APR, processing officers should compare both CRS scores to determine which of the following scenarios should be applied:
- If the applicant’s CRS score at the time of the e-APR is equal to or higher than the lowest-ranked score in the round of invitations, the application will not be refused under section A11.2, as long as the applicant’s supporting documentation corroborates their claims and they continue to meet the MEC for Express Entry, including the requirements of the program to which they were invited to apply.
- If the applicant’s CRS score at the time of the e-APR is lower than the lowest-ranked score in the round of invitations, the application should be refused under section A11.2 for not having maintained the qualifications that would justify the ITA.
Ministerial Instructions related to the CRS may be revised periodically.
Applications must be assessed under section A11.2 according to the Ministerial Instructions in force during the round of invitations to which the candidate is invited. In other words, an applicant’s CRS score at the time of the ITA and at the time of application should be calculated based on the Ministerial Instructions in place at the time of the ITA.
As you can read from the above lines, the score is recorded both at the ITA and the e-APR. The officer will make a decision based on the e-APR score.
I had also mentioned about MEC and I am still not changing what I said. The OP met Minimum Entry Criteria at the ITA because he/she had at least 1 year of work experience and a CLB score that allowed them to create a profile. This is not the case for those who have work experience short of 1 year. As per the OP's post, he/she is few weeks away from completing two years of work experience. The section below is for MEC:
Requirement to maintain the MEC
Ministerial Instructions created under the authority of
section A10.3(1)(e) list the MEC for Express Entry. Applicants must meet the MEC to be accepted into the Express Entry pool and must also meet the MEC when they are issued an ITA and when they submit their e-APR.
If an applicant’s situation changes in the time between when they receive an ITA and when they submit their e-APR to such a degree that their qualifications fall below the MEC, the application must be refused under
section A11.2. The officer must also consider whether the application should be refused for not meeting the minimum requirements of the federal program to which they are applying or for misrepresentation.
Lastly for age, an exception is made for candidates who lose points due to having their birthday after the time of ITA
Exemption to section A11.2: candidates whose birthday occurs after they receive an ITA
An applicant may have a birthday after they receive an ITA but before they submit their e-APR. Their change in age may lower their CRS score below the lowest score in the round of invitations. It may also result in the applicant no longer meeting the minimum requirements of the FSWC and, consequently, no longer meeting the MEC, resulting in a refusal based on
section A11.2.
When a change in age results in the candidate no longer meeting the MEC or having their recalculated CRS points score fall below the lowest points score in that round of invitations, officers should consider applying the
public policy to exempt applicants for permanent residence from certain age-based requirements between invitation to apply and application, based on
section A25.2. This consideration can result in an exemption from the refusal of an application under section A11.2.
This public policy also grants an exemption to applicants who may be refused for failing to meet FSWC program requirements when their birthday occurs between the ITA and e-APR.
Source:
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-2.5/section-11.2.html
Visa or other document not to be issued
- 11.2 (1) An officer may not issue a visa or other document in respect of an application for permanent residence to a foreign national who was issued an invitation under Division 0.1 to make that application if — at the time the invitation was issued or at the time the officer received their application — the foreign national did not meet the criteria set out in an instruction given under paragraph 10.3(1)(e) or did not have the qualifications on the basis of which they were ranked under an instruction given under paragraph 10.3(1)(h) and were issued the invitation.
- Exceptions
(2) Despite subsection (1), an officer may issue the visa or other document if, at the time the officer received their application,
- (a) the foreign national did not meet the criteria set out in an instruction given under paragraph 10.3(1)(e) — or did not have the qualifications on the basis of which they were ranked under an instruction given under paragraph 10.3(1)(h) — because the applicant’s birthday occurred after the invitation was issued; or
- (b) the foreign national did not have the qualifications they had at the time the invitation was issued and on the basis of which they were ranked under an instruction given under paragraph 10.3(1)(h), but
- (i) they met the criteria set out in an instruction given under paragraph 10.3(1)(e), and
- (ii) they occupied a rank that is not lower than the rank that a foreign national was required to have occupied to be invited to make an application.
The bold portion applies to the OP's circumstances. If you have more questions, feel free to post your questions!
