I’m applying for the GTV on the “Exceptional Promise” route and would appreciate it if someone could review my application below.
For context: I have a BSc in Software Engineering, an MSc in Machine Learning and have 1 year of work experience as a Research Engineer at an innovative AI startup. I have also recently published a paper at a top-tier AI conference as well as several smaller workshop papers.
LoRs
LOR1: Professor & Senior Research Scientist at Google.
LOR2: Research Scientist at Google.
LOR3: Director of Research at Google.
MC
Employment contract showing a competitive salary (£72,000 base + £75,000 estimated equity), including comparison via Glassdoor.
Documentation showing that I served as a reviewer for a top-tier conference in 2024 and was nominated as a reviewer for another top-tier conference in 2025 (“assessing the work of others in the same field”)
Screenshots of open-source Github repositories for 4 personal research projects with 30-70 stars each.
OC4 (Academic achievement)
Top-tier conference publication from 2024 including spotlight (top-5% paper) mention on the official conference website.
MSc degree with distinction and recognition of excellence via the Dean’s list + a first-class undergrad degree.
Letter of support from another Research Scientist at Google.
OC3 or OC1? (Impact or Innovation)
Letter from employer evidencing my innovative work & substantial contributions to the startup.
Technical report written by me and published on the company website describing how the product is innovative.
GitHub account showing LoC and continuing contribution to the startup.
Employment contract showing compensation (same as for MC)
Questions
Based on this evidence, would it be more promising to argue OC3 or OC1?
The startup (and my work) is very innovative but still at an early stage with limited market success. The guideline says “Any company provided as evidence should demonstrate a level of income beyond solely covering the applicant’s salary and must have been commercially successful […]”.
On the other hand, my impact on the startup is substantial, but I believe OC3 is about my impact on the field (which given the early stage of my career is not yet that big) rather than on my work?
I know each piece of evidence has to be assigned to a specific MC/OC item. Can I reuse evidence between MC/OCs as long as I submit it multiple times (e.g. the salary/compension evidence that I use both for MC and OC3)?
Regarding LOR2: Is the Research Scientist role at Google senior enough to meet the requirements for the LoRs (“must be a senior member of their organisation”)?
All of the letters of recommendation and the letter of support for 4.3 are written by employees at Google. Would it be preferable to have a LoR from a different company? These people would not be as familiar with my work.
I greatly appreciate any suggestions and clarifications!
Unless you have patents under your or clear evidence of personal innovation it’s usually easier to explain OC3. OC3 is about your work, not the whole field.
No, each evidence needs to be unique and only on one criteria.
A Research Scientist doesn’t sound like a senior position, I would aim to replace it
If you have the option and assuming they know your work I think it’s better if you can provide a letter from another place too.
MC
2. Being nominated fora future event might not count since it didn’t happen yet
OC4
5. This OC is about contribution. MSc work is specifically excluded
Research undertaken as part of an undergraduate or MSc thesis does not qualify for this criteria;
You need a letter of support “from a research supervisor or other expert in your area of expertise” - does this person fit the description?
Do also add metrics about your published paper ( Downloads/ reads / citations from google scholar or similar)
Msc/Undergrad Degree itself with deans list is an acheivement. But could not be considered as an academic contribution to research.
About OC3/OC1, Looks like OC3 will suit you.
Have you had more than one employment contract in the recent times as it becomes a track record of working in digital products?
Does the technical report has your name as an author? Contains architecture/designs?
In terms of questions,
I feel it’s more promising towards OC3.
You cannot reuse same evidence under MC and OC. High Salary compnesation ( Payslips, tax returns / payscale comparison charts) could be one evidence for MC and history of employment contracts could be another evidence for OC3.
Ideally, C level executives are preferred for LOR like Directors and CTO’s. Research Scientist letter can be used as a reference from employer to support other evidences in OC3.
Would be great if you could get one LOR from outside google as well.
Hi @hsafra, thank you for your response! I appreciate your time.
Thank you, I agree it might be easier to argue for OC3 but I’m not sure I understand this point exactly. The phrasing in the guideline is “they have made significant technical, commercial or entrepreneurial contributions to the field as a […]”. Doesn’t this mean that it’s not sufficient to have a large impact on your company/product but you also need your work to be impactful to the field? Currently, the startup that I’m working for is still very early-stage and has no revenue or active users.
Thank you, that clarifies things!
One of the evidence examples from the guideline is “Evidence of awards received for outstanding applied work, supported by excellent academic achievement (a first-class degree or distinction)”. Given what you said, I assume this means I’d need both “awards for applied work” AND “academic achievement (e.g. distinction)”, meaning academic achievement by itself is not sufficient.
Hi @Surender_S, thank you for your response! I appreciate your time.
(1) Great suggestion, thank you. I have added metrics to my CV (citations & GitHub stars) and I might also include the metrics as part of the evidence.
For (2), are you suggesting moving it to another section, e.g. MC? I assumed it would make sense to include it for OC4 given that the guideline states “Evidence of awards received for outstanding applied work, supported by excellent academic achievement (a first-class degree or distinction)”.
Does this mean it’s okay for the startup/product that I’m working on to have no significant revenue or active users? My impact to it has been very large but clearly the impact on the field hasn’t yet been substantial.
Thank you for the suggestions! I will go for OC3 and OC4 then, and I’ll include compensation for MC, history of employment contracts for OC3, and potentially shuffle around letters or get additional ones from someone more senior & outside of Google.
I think your MC can be stronger. Do you have an additional conference that you have already attended? When in 2024 was the previous one? If it’s close to application date, TN May not consider it.
The Degree with distinction isn’t a valid evidence for OC4.
In OC1 and OC3, ensure your specific contribution and quantified impact is clear. As of now I think this set can be stronger. As of your set, OC3 could be a better choice.
Each evidence has to be unique and cannot be re-used in different criterias.
OC1 is about your personal innovation. Just working for an innovative company isn’t enough. That’s why it’s a bit tricky to prove for regular employees unless you have a patent under your name or you can provide hard evidence that you have innovated by yourself
Hi @peter1 , Your OC4 looked weak, hence, I suggested to do OC2 ( work outside of my immediate occupation that contributed to the advancement of the sector)
While we don’t want to lose out the reserach publication as an evidence, I suggested it to add it to OC2.
I would suggest you put the salary evidence as the last MC, it does not seem to carry a lot of weight, an assessor may say it is not high enough for your industry.
Now for the open source project how long have you contributed to it? I don’t think it helps if you call it a personal project so it is not assumed you did this just to apply for GTV. For your review contribution at a conference in 2024, how recent is this, it may be considered a week evidence if it is close to the timing of your application. I would say up to 6 months is recent l. The future review evidence in 2025, should not be on your list.
OC4, the publication is recent so may not be sufficient. What other substantial contribution do you have in the field of research? What is the letter of support from the research scientist about? Does it relate to any novel or ground breaking research you have done?
You are best to use OC3 and show your impact with quantifiable metrics. Also note that you can’t repeat evidence used twice. You evidence should be unique.