I’m preparing an Exceptional Promise –Product Manager/Owner (Digital Tech) application and would really value a quick sanity check on my MC / OC / LOR structure, especially around a government-funded national training programme where I was a PM tutor.
PM tutor & career coach in a state-funded programme: Naeil Baeum Camp (K-Digital Training, Team Sparta)
MC – emerging leader in digital tech
Plan: combine national training impact + product impact.
MC evidence idea:
• Naeil Baeum Camp – national PM tutor (Team Sparta)
Govt-funded K-Digital Training programme.
Roles:
2-1. Career coach for ~220 graduates (own 3-question career framework).
2-2. PM tutor – “Data-driven PM with Generative AI”
2-3. Cohort 1 (53 students): completion 92%, employment ~80%, gov’t score 3.7/5, NPS +14.5 vs baseline (KPI: dropout <10%, employment ≥40%, NPS ≥40). & Cohort 3 (40 students): completion 87%, NPS 45.69 (all 3 KPIs met; final employment/gov’t scores still pending).
Taught IA, user flows, data-driven decision making (SQL, Sheets), AI-assisted PM workflows, plus extra sessions on soft skills, CV/portfolio, interview prep, etc.
Adjusted curriculum & tutoring style between cohorts based on VOC.
Economic angle:
5-1. Improves ROI of public funding, increases supply of work-ready PMs.
5-2. Around March 2025, Team Sparta attracted a large PE investment; performance of these tracks (completion/employment/NPS) was part of the story.
• Bancow (fintech PO)
Led app renewal → first month results:
CS tickets about “when can I invest?”: ~40 → 8–10/month (-80%).
MAU +5–7%; PDP dwell time <20s → 2–3 mins.
• Seoul Design Project (B2B design SaaS/marketplace)
Helped pivot from MVP to new B2B service.
After pivot: £250,000 revenue in 6 months, 15+ clients, min £5000 per project.
MC questions:
For EP PM, is it reasonable to use Naeil Baeum Camp (national training + KPIs) + product impact from Bancow / Seoul Design Project as my main MC story?
Is it okay that some Cohort 3 numbers (employment/gov’t rating) are still pending if I focus on completed Cohort 1 data and describe Cohort 3 carefully?
OC – plan
Thinking:
• OC3 – significant contribution to product-led companies
Bancow app renewal + B2B onboarding.
Seoul Design Project pivot + 5억 KRW revenue.
Possibly some Naeil Baeum Camp pieces (e.g. KPI improvements at provider level).
• OC2 – contribution to ecosystem / education
Naeil Baeum Camp as state-funded programme: teaching PM hard skills, generative-AI-driven workflows, mentoring before/after the camp, improving national digital skills & employment.
OC questions:
Would you put Naeil Baeum Camp mainly under OC2, or do parts of it fit reasonably under OC1 (innovation in AI-driven PM training) or OC3 as well?
Is it risky if a large chunk of my OC evidence is education/mentoring-heavy, even though it’s clearly digital-product and data/AI focused?
LOR plan
I’m planning 3 LORs from:
CTO – Bancow (fintech)
CEO – Seoul Design Project (B2B design SaaS/marketplace)
Track manager – Team Sparta / Naeil Baeum Camp
LOR questions:
Does this mix (fintech CTO + B2B SaaS CEO + national training track manager) look sufficiently strong/diverse for EP PM?
Is it acceptable to explicitly mention economic/national impact of Naeil Baeum Camp (public ROI, employment outcomes, link to investment) in the training LOR, if framed carefully?
Any quick thoughts or red flags would be really appreciated.
Thank you in advance for your time and advice.
You have a good profile working in tech companies an as a PM plus having a national engagement and impact. Great job there however your outline has a few key challenges that need to be resolved for a strong application endorsement chance:
Some primary guidelines are:
Each criteria needs to have unique evidences without repeat and your evidences are repeating across criterias - this will not be accepted as per guidelines.
OC3 is about showing measurable quantified impact on core company metrics within an organisation whereas OC2 is about showing contribution outside of your work towards advancement of field. Hence the Naeil camp is not applicable in OC3.
You need atleast 2 evidences per criteria hence only one in OC2 is not sufficient.
Your outline has primarily 3 stories: i. App renewal ii. Pivot iii. Naeil camp which are not sufficient to fulfil atleast 6 evidences required across the three chosen criteria.
You need third party validations across your outline beyond self-claims to demonstrate strong proofs.
To strengthen your outline:
You need one more public evidence like the camp for OC2 or find ways to split this evidence into two different parts and stories that don’t overlap (for MC and OC2 however will still need one more for OC2). Arrange for a letter from the program director : invite letter, result confirmation, reference letter confirming the program structure and impact along with a couple of pictures of your sessions. If this has been covered in any news or media please include that.
For both pivot and app renewal stories, you need validation like letters and any media/PR coverage, market traction proof, any customer reviews or testimonials.
You will need a couple of more stories to have unique evidence set across criteria.
Your experience is strong, and you’ve got a solid foundation to build from, I must say. A quick note Product Owner isn’t listed as an eligible skill, it’s safer just to use Product Manager, which you’re already doing well.
For your MC, your plan to combine national training impact + product impact may not work, as MC is about recognition, not impact or responsibilities. A lot of the bullet points you listed describe what you delivered, which is great, but MC evidence needs to show how you were recognised for those achievements. For example, the app renewal work at Bancow could work if you can clearly show how you led it, the significance of the outcomes, quantifiable results and ideally support it with a reference letter from a C-suite leader who can validate your role and expertise.
I also notice that some of your evidence in other criterion are related, you are required to have unique evidence across the criteria.
I’d really suggest you read the Tech Nation guidance (The only source of truth). It helps you quickly see how your evidence aligns with what they’re actually assessing.
Overall, you’re on the right track. Your experience is genuinely strong. I am happy to share my Pro Tips and Guide to give you an overview of what the Tech Nation Stage1 is all about.
Your foundation is solid with the Naeil Baeum Camp and your product work. However, you need to reframe your MC evidence to focus on recognition rather than impact. The mandatory criteria looks for how you were recognized for your achievements, not just what you delivered. For example, the app renewal at Bancow could work if you have a reference letter from a C-suite executive validating your expertise and leadership role.
Your biggest challenge is evidence overlap. Tech Nation requires unique evidence across each criterion. You can’t use the same work for MC and multiple OCs. Right now, your Naeil Baeum Camp appears across MC, OC2, and potentially OC3. You need to pick one placement for it and find completely different work for the other criteria. I’ve seen applications rejected specifically because evidence was repeated. You also need at least six unique pieces of evidence total.
The training work fits OC2 best as ecosystem contribution. For OC3, focus purely on your commercial product impact at Bancow and Seoul Design Project with third-party validation like customer testimonials or media coverage. Get those reference letters that explicitly mention the outcomes you achieved. Your LOR mix looks reasonable, but ensure each letter addresses why you’re recognized in the industry and mentions your exceptional promise explicitly. With these adjustments and 2-3 more unique evidence pieces, you’ll have a much stronger case.
Thank you very much indeed. Based on the feedback you provided, we have prepared the following preparations and new strategies.
MC - Potential Leader Recommendations
Evidence: CEO’s letter of recommendation (Seoul Design Project), CTO’s letter of recommendation (Bankow), Camp Manager’s letter of recommendation (Tomorrow Learning Camp)
Total: 3 items
OC1 - Business Impact (Innovation)
Evidence: Client reviews & contracts, website landing page (proof of current operation), sales documentation, performance documentation (e.g., post-pivot sales), news articles
Total: 3 items
OC2 - Talent Development, Ecosystem Contribution
Evidence: Review results from the official government service website, one combined recommendation letter from graduates (representing two individuals), documentation proving improvement in Tomorrow Learning Camp’s internal metrics, Tomorrow Learning Camp special lecture materials
Total: 4 items
I may have misunderstood.
Is it necessary to prepare the table of contents and evidence in the following structure?
MC - Seoul Design Project, OC1 - Bankow, OC2 - Tomorrow Learning Camp
As English is my second language, there may be some errors in word choice or sentence structure. My writing style is influenced by the nature of my profession. Please understand
