You can very much argue not (though I'd argue unless the heists are very consistent in what tools they need that there's some differences--and if they aren't, then it questions the need to fill after-the-fact. I think the differences are enough there that, in fact, that's usually what justifies the after-the-fact fill mechanic), but my argument here is that knowing what's in your kit is less uncertain than whether you will know the answer to a knowledge check, because your "kit" in the latter case is intrinsically more incomplete (unless its a very narrow and basic subject, in which case there should be no check in the first place.) One is far more deterministic from the get-go with people who's kit is literally life or death (and where its often pretty consistent from one time to the next).
Don’t you think “the knowledge kit’s” limits are contingent upon whose kit it is though?
Sherlock Holmes’ kit is vast beyond comprehension.
Multi-discipline scientists and forensic engineers are similar in real life (they know a lot about a lot of things and are able to/required to integrate it)
Same goes for cross-discipline athletes and martial combatants who are deeply engaged in the process (they know a lot about a lot of things and are able to/required to integrate it)
In TTRPG’s we can spot these guys by way of their PC build and the way the action resolution mechanics interact with that. For instance:
* Dungeon World - A Wizard with 18 Int is going to be rolling 2d6 +3 to Spout Lore (consult their accumulated knowledge) and with spending one of their Bag of Books (kit), that goes to 2d6+4. With Font of Knowledge, you're rolling 2d6+5 nearly all of the time. That means virtually every time you consult your accumulated knowledge, you can bare minimum (7-9 result) have something interesting about the subject stipulated into the play space. In fact, the overwhelming bulk of the time (83 % of the time), you're going to know something both interesting and useful (immediately actionable!)!
Further still, if that same character has Logical, they're rolling +Int for Discern Realities instead of Wisdom.
Further further still, even on a failure (6-) on Spout Lore, the GM is still stipulating something interesting that the PC knows on the subject...its just (a) not the exact information the player was hoping for or (b) it may be that the thing the player was hoping for is true, but there is some terrible truth associated with it that makes the pursuit of this avenue of knowledge dangerous/fraught.
This is as Sherlock Holmes a character as it gets in a game and this investment isn't particularly deep (level 4).
* Burning Wheel family of games is similar as is 4e D&D due to Fail Forward (and any other game where Fail Forward governs action resolution).
Regarding actual kit, multi-tools (or the proficient user's ability to use mundane tools in creative, multi-purpose ways) does a lot of heavy lifting. Blades in the Dark doesn't just emulate "the right tool for the job", but it also emulates this. Stonetop has very similar loadout handling to Blades (with a unique flourish in its "Small Items" rider to the typical "Have What You Need" handling of Loadout) for this. Dungeon World handles this with "Adventuring Gear" being the catch-all for "Have What You Need" (you purchase AG @ x uses + y Load and pull from it to "Have What You Need" in terms of basic tools and supplies).
Given what I see on these boards (and my own experience GMing) regarding 5e, the deployment (and skillful deployment) of equipment/gear/supplies in Dungeon World, Stonetop, Blades is a foundational aspect of play...while its effectively outright missing in 5e. That has to say something about the relative gameplay-facilitating functionality of this brand of loading out and inventory management, doesn't it?
