Make the argument at the top
This is the one case where a summary is not optional. Two or three sentences naming where you're coming from, where you're going, and what makes the move credible — a qualification, a project, relevant work you did inside your old role.
Without it the reader has to reconstruct your reasoning from a job history that points somewhere else. Most won't.
Translate, don't discard
Your old experience is not irrelevant, it is described in the wrong vocabulary. A teacher has run projects to a deadline with fixed resources, presented to hostile audiences, and analysed performance data. A chef has managed a team under time pressure with tight margins and no room for defects.
Go through each bullet and rewrite it in the language of the field you're entering, without changing what happened. What you are removing is jargon, not substance.
Lead with proof, not enthusiasm
Everybody changing fields is enthusiastic about it; enthusiasm is not evidence. A course you completed, a project you shipped, freelance work you took on, an internal transfer you engineered — these are what make the change believable.
If you have such work, it may deserve its own section above your employment history. A hybrid layout exists precisely for this.
Cut the parts that argue against you
Detail from your old field that has no bearing on the new one takes space and reinforces the mismatch. Older roles can compress to a line each.
Keep what shows scope, judgement, and outcomes — those transfer. Drop the domain specifics that don't.