Advise on Exceptional Promise Application - Software Engineer + Side Project (MC, OC1, OC3)

Stage 1
1

Hi everyone,

I’m preparing my Global Talent Visa application under the Exceptional Promise route and would really appreciate feedback from this community before I submit.

Background

  • 4 years as a Software Engineer at a large financial services firm (Goldman Sachs)
  • 2 promotions in that time, currently in a mid-level engineering role
  • 18 months as Tech Lead and primary contributor to an open-source/free AI documentation project for robotics developers (let’s call it “RoboDoc”)
  • Currently on Skilled Worker visa, looking to switch to Global Talent
  • Also worth mentioning RoboDoc got a $250k investment offer from a few angel investors who are all founders/ceos of larger companies in the AI/Robotics space, we haven’t accepted any form of funding yet.
  • I’ve been on a skilled worker visa for 4 years and I think GT is the best path to PR for my situation

I’m applying as a technical applicant and plan to use MC + OC1 + OC3.

Recommendation Letters

  1. Executive Director at Goldman Sachs - has managed/known my work for 4 years, can speak to my technical contributions and rapid career progression. He’s been in engineering at the bank for 19 years.
  2. Former Manager (now Tech Lead at a fintech startup that raised £10M) - managed me directly for 2 years
  3. MIT PhD Researcher (trying to secure this) - leads a robotics research team that uses RoboDoc for their humanoid robot project. They’ve provided a testimonial document and have been actively engaged with feature requests. Alternatively, I have a backup option from a volunteer project.

Question: Is having 2 letters from people who knew me at Goldman Sachs (ED and ex-manager) a problem even though the ex-manager is now at a different company?

Mandatory Criteria: Recognition as Potential Leading Talent

Evidence M1: External Validation from Industry/Academia

  • Testimonial document from MIT PhD researchers who use RoboDoc for humanoid robotics research
  • Email correspondence showing active collaboration and feature requests from MIT team
  • Screenshot of MIT researcher’s tweet praising our responsiveness (20k+ views)
  • Evidence of adoption by a major open-source robotics project (associated with $3M+ in hardware sales)
  • Screenshot of outreach from CEO of a major AI company (well-known in the ML community)

Evidence M2: Program Recognition & Traction Metrics

  • NVIDIA Inception program acceptance
  • Microsoft for Startups program acceptance
  • Analytics showing ~6,000 unique users, 1,500 registered users, ~200 daily active users
  • npm package with 14,000+ total downloads, averaging 220/week with peaks of 1,000+
  • Launch tweet with 100k+ views

Concerns: RoboDoc is free with no revenue yet. Will the lack of commercial traction weaken this? I’m framing it as a project I contribute to rather than a “company I founded” - is that the right approach?

Optional Criteria 1: Innovation

Evidence OC1-1: Technical Innovation & Product Development

  • Overview of RoboDoc - AI-powered documentation platform for robotics (novel problem space)
  • GitHub repository showing my contributions - I wrote approximately 80% of the codebase
  • Pull request history and commit statistics demonstrating technical leadership
  • npm package publication and adoption metrics
  • Technical architecture showing the AI/ML components

Evidence OC1-2: Technical Leadership

  • Discord screenshots showing me making technical decisions, coordinating contributors, prioritizing features
  • Evidence of my Tech Lead role in product direction
  • Feature planning and roadmap decisions

Concerns: The guide says companies should show “income beyond covering the applicant’s salary” - RoboDoc has no revenue. I’m emphasizing the innovation aspect (new field: AI + robotics documentation) rather than commercial success. Is this sufficient for OC1?

Optional Criteria 3: Significant Technical Contributions

Evidence OC3-1: Career Progression & Recognition

  • 2 promotion letters in 4 years
  • Performance review excerpts highlighting technical achievements
  • Salary data showing I’m in the top 20% of earners for my age group in my region

Evidence OC3-2: Technical Impact at Scale

  • Documentation of developer tooling I built that’s used by engineers across the firm
  • Contributions to flagship modernization initiatives
  • Metrics on how many developers use my tools (trying to gather this)

Concerns: Goldman Sachs is a financial services firm, not a “product-led digital technology company.” However, I understand technical applicants from non-technical organisations are eligible. I’m framing my work as enabling digital product development (developer tooling that helps engineers build modern applications). Is this framing sufficient?

Evidence I Chose NOT to Include (and why)

I also have 8 months of volunteer work with an NGO building an accessible learning platform for disabled people. I served as “Accessibility Champion” and our team won an award.

However, I decided not to use this for OC2 because:

  • The volunteer work was through my employer’s corporate volunteering initiative (similar to “20% time” or corporate social responsibility programs)
  • Based on the guide stating that work “undertaken whilst representing a company” is not sufficient for OC2
  • Duration was only 8 months which may not show “consistent track record”
  • Recognition was team-based rather than individual

Question: Was this the right call? Or could I have framed it differently?

cc @Francisca_Chiedu @Raphael

2

Hi @bolu

From what you’ve shared, your four years as a Software Engineer in a financial firm makes you eligible for the Exceptional Promise route, assuming that’s the full extent of your tech‑sector experience. If you have more substantial experience beyond this, then the Talent route might be worth considering.

Career progression and promotions can support your narrative, but they aren’t evidence on their own. The same applies to your current visa status. The investment offer also isn’t evidence unless the investment has actually been made, in that case, it could count as external recognition that you’ve built something valuable.

Recommendation Letters

Letters from the Executive Director at Goldman Sachs and your former manager are fine. However, for the MIT PhD researcher, remember that academics are not automatically considered experts in the digital technology sector. You’ll need to check his career background to confirm he qualifies.

Is having two letters from people who knew me at Goldman Sachs a problem?

Not necessarily. Two letters connected to the same company are acceptable, but I wouldn’t recommend getting all three from the same organisation. Since your ex‑manager is now at a different company, his letter should come from his current letterhead, which helps diversify your referees.

MC

A testimonial document alone won’t demonstrate that you’re recognised as a potential leader. If the MIT researcher wants to support you, it’s better for him to write a proper recommendation letter, not just a testimonial, but even then, letter are not substantial evidence on their own.

Email correspondence, it depends on what the emails actually show. If they’re just feature requests or general communication, that won’t count as recognition.

Tweets are not evidence either. They’re mentions, not validation.

Evidence of adoption by a major open‑source robotics project can work, but you need to show actual proof, not just screenshots of outreach.

NVIDIA Inception acceptance you need to be clear on what you were accepted for. Microsoft for Startups acceptance can support your narrative, but it’s not strong enough on its own to show recognition.

Analytics (6,000 users, 1,500 registered, etc.) can help, but it depends on where the data comes from. GitHub metrics are fine. Internal dashboards are not.

npm downloads (14k+) are good, they show adoption and can count as a recognition element.

Concern: RoboDoc is free with no revenue. Will this weaken MC?

You can use adoption metrics, but revenue is usually stronger, especially for MC or OC1. If revenue isn’t there, you may want to position RoboDoc under OC2 (work outside your day‑to‑day that contributes to the sector).

OC1

Most of your OC1 evidence is still centred around RoboDoc. Using the same project across multiple criteria can weaken your narrative. Try to diversify if possible.

OC3

Promotion letters, performance reviews, and salary data won’t show your technical contribution as a technical applicant. They show progression, not impact nor contributions.

Goldman Sachs being a financial firm is not a problem, Tech Nation accepts technical applicants from non‑tech companies. However, your evidence may not rightly align with OC3, that requires technical contribution to a product led company.

Volunteer Work

You made the right decision leaving out the NGO work. Since it was done through your employer’s corporate volunteering programme, it wouldn’t meet OC2 requirements. The short duration and team‑based recognition also make it weaker.

Overall

You have potential, but you need to spend more time aligning your evidence with the Tech Nation guidance. I would suggest you go through the official guidance carefully and review useful posts on this platform.

All the best

3

Hi @Raphael is it compulsory for the Recommendation letter to have a letterhead of their company? The reason I’m asking is because I used to work one of the FAANG companies and my manager is saying he can’t write the Recommendation letter with the company letterhead.

4

Whilst recommendation letters are typically written on official letterhead to enhance credibility, it isn’t mandatory. If the person cannot use company letterhead due to internal policy, that’s completely fine. In that case, the letter should be digitally signed, also attach his CV to support verification.

1 Like
5

Thanks for the detailed feedback, really helpful.

Based on your suggestion, I’m thinking of restructuring to MC + OC2 + OC3 instead.

MC would focus purely on recognition from others - the MIT letter, NVIDIA/Microsoft program acceptances, CEO outreach.

OC2 would cover my actual contribution and its impact - the 80% codebase, GitHub stats, Discord leadership, npm downloads, user metrics.

OC3 stays as Goldman Sachs but focusing on actual technical impact metrics rather than promotions.

RoboDoc is genuinely independent from my employer and unpaid, so OC2 feels like a better fit than stretching it across MC + OC1.

Does this structure make more sense? Any red flags?

Thanks again.

6

Could be, however still depends on how you present your evidence to rightly meet the criteria. For instance, that RoboDoc is independent from your employer and unpaid does not automatically qualifies it for OC2, you need to still show the recognition elements and/or substantial impact metrics.