Exceptional Talent - Software Engineer Review Request & Advice

Stage 1
1

  • Mandatory Documents:
    → Personal Statement
    → CV

  • Recommendation Letters:
    → CTO of Current Company A
    → Principal Staff Member of Company B
    → Engineering Manager at Company C (He is familiar with my work before he moved to Company C)

CRITERIA THAT I WILL BE SUBMITTING:
Mandatory Criteria

  • You led the growth of a product-led digital technology company, product, or team inside a digital technology company, as evidenced by reference letter(s) from leading industry expert(s) describing your work, or as evidenced by news clippings, lines of code from public repos, or similar evidence.
    → MC EV1: File – Company A CEO Reference (Yinka)
    → MC EV2: File – Company A Product Contributions (Code Commits, Screenshots, Customer Testimonial)

  • You led the marketing or business development at a product-led digital technology company, demonstrably enabling substantial revenue and/or customer growth or major commercial success, as evidenced by reference letter(s) from leading industry expert(s) describing your work, senior global commercial executives inside the company and/or at company partners/customers, or similar evidence.
    → MC EV3: File – Company D Head of Products Reference
    → MC EV4: File – Company D Product Contributions (Code Commits, Screenshots, News Clippings, Revenue Growth)

  • Significant technical, commercial, or entrepreneurial contribution to a product-led digital technology company.
    → OC3 EV1: File – Employment Letters & Salary Track Record (Bank Statement and Payslips, intend to present it with the home country base currency)
    → OC3 EV2: File – Performance Appraisals

  • Recognition outside immediate employment.
    → OC2 EV1: File – GitHub Profile (Repos, Contributions, Screenshots)
    → OC2 EV2: File – StackOverflow Profile (Reputation, Answers, Technical Interview Proof)
    → OC2 EV3: File – Technical Talks on Twitter Space (170+ Listeners), Google Slides (Main Speaker)

  • Made academic contributions through research published or otherwise endorsed by an expert.
    → OC4 EV1: File – Technical Contribution to Published Academic Article
    (The name was not listed as the author, but the professor acknowledged my contribution. Includes evidence of my technical input and a screenshot of the journal referencing the implementation.)

Could you kindly review the documents and provide feedback on the following:

Clarity and structure: Are the documents well-organized and clear in presenting my achievements and evidence?

Relevance and strength of evidence: Does the supporting evidence convincingly demonstrate my qualifications for each criterion?

Any areas for improvement or additional suggestions: Are there any gaps or areas where the application could be strengthened?

I highly value your experience and would appreciate any insights you can provide. Please let me know if you require any additional information or context.

Thank you for your time and support.
@Francisca_Chiedu @Akash_Joshi @dai-ichi

2

Your application is well-structured with clear evidence across mandatory and optional criteria. To strengthen your application, add news clippings or customer testimonials specifically linking your work to commercial success for the mandatory criteria. For the academic contribution, include a signed letter from the professor detailing your technical input since journal screenshots alone may not suffice. Convert salary documents to GBP and add a comparison to UK median salaries for your role to clarify financial impact.

Make sure your personal statement flows like a story, and combine each evidence set (e.g., salary slips + currency conversion) into single PDFs with brief summaries.

1 Like
3

Hi @integral_codex

MC and OC2 look good. You can only apply to two OCs and not 3 hence you need to choose between OC2, OC3 and OC4.

OC3 is weak and irrelevant: Internal employment letters and performance appraisals are not valid examples for this criteria as per guidelines. Both your evidences here will be invalid for OC3.

1 Like
4

Hello @pahuja @Akash_Joshi , thank you so much for your honest review and feedbacks.

I have revised the structure of my evidence document and would like to ask a few follow-up questions regarding the updated submissions under each criterion.

These are my new Evidences Structure with MC1 , OC2 and OC3 update (OC4 Evidence merged):

Led or contributed to a large technology-led industry initiative
→ MC EV1: File – Company A CEO Reference
→ MC EV2: File – Company A Product Contributions (Code Commits, Screenshots, Customer Testimonial)
→ MC EV3: File – Company D Product Contributions (Screenshots, News Clippings, Revenue Growth) - Pending
→ MC EV4: File – Employment Letters & Salary Track Record (Bank Statement and Payslips, intend to present it with the home country base currency)

Recognition for Work Outside Immediate Occupation
→ OC2 EV1: File – Public GitHub Profile
→ OC2 EV2: File – StackOverflow Profile (Reputation, Answers, Technical Interview Proof)
→ OC2 EV3: File – Technical Talks on Twitter Space (170+ Listeners), Google Slides (Main Speaker), and Internal Engineering Tech Talk as the main speaker

Significant Technical Contribution
→ OC3 EV1: File – Company D Head of Products Reference
→ OC3 EV2: File – Company A Performance Appraisals (This evidence includes a formal appraisal recognizing the successful delivery and deployment of key products, as well as a letter from HR acknowledging my contributions, accompanied by confirmation of a salary increase awarded in recognition of my impact) OR
OC3 EV2: File – Technical Contribution to Published Academic Article(The name was not listed as the author, but the professor acknowledged my contribution. Includes evidence of my technical input and a screenshot of the journal referencing the implementation.)
→ OC3 EV3: File – Project (From Company B, Company D, Company E) Technical Product Contribution.

Question 1: Performance Appraisal Evidence
Evidence Description:

This letter of performance appraisal encapsulates the technical contribution that I’ve made to several products, which were successfully delivered into production.

The letter also has a letter explaining the salary increase that I received as recognition of my excellent performance, specifically for bringing in key products that have yielded revenue and expanded the company.

Question: Does this evidence still valid under the OC3 ?

Question 2: Tech Talk Evidence
Evidence Description:

This report offers evidence for two tech talks that I gave:

Twitter Space Tech Talk:
I was invited by the CTO of the company to give a talk on a public Twitter Space session. The evidence given is:

i)A screenshot of the invitation

ii)The Google Slides presented

iii)A link to the recorded session

Internal Engineering Tech Talk:
I was invited by my Engineering Manager at my current company to give a tech talk to fellow engineers. This session was internal, and I’ve included:

i)Relevant presentation materials

ii)Communication confirming the invitation

Clarification:
I would like to have confirmation on whether consolidating the two talks into a single evidence item would be considered strong enough, or if it would be better to keep only the Twitter Space talk, given its public visibility, and support it with a reference letter from the CTO.

Question 3: Replacement of OC3 EV2 with Published Journal Technical Contributions
Evidence Description:

If OC3 EV2 (Evidence of products in Performance Appraisal) cannot meet the needs of OC2, can I strengthen the application by replacing it with evidence of published journal technical contributions? That is, code contributions to a published journal, supported by GitHub commit evidence.

Question 4: StackOverflow Profile (Reputation, Answers, Technical Interview Proof)
Evidence Description:

I was directly contacted by the Co-founder & CEO of a premium company after reviewing my LinkedIn profile and finding it to be suitable for a Senior Engineering position. Such an unsolicited contact by a prominent founder, with prior experience at leading global companies, speaks to the recognition of my capability and visibility in the digital technology landscape.

Following this initial contact, the CEO asked me to visit for a technical interview with the firm’s CTO/Co-founder, which lasted 30 minutes. I have attached both:

i)A screenshot
ii)A video recording of the interview as proof.

In addition, I am combining this evidence with my Stack Overflow contributions, where I have been actively providing high-quality technical solutions that have been accepted by the community. These two pieces of evidence together demonstrate the external recognition of my technical skills and the contribution I am making to the industry.

Question:
Will this evidence be valid under these criteria?

Question 5:

Can MC EV4: Employment Letters & Salary Track Record be used to satisfy the requirements of MC1? I intend to present this evidence alongside a comparison of my salary to the industry standards in my region, to demonstrate that my compensation is reflective of high remuneration due to my expertise and contribution in the field.

Additionally, is it acceptable to present my salary in my home country’s currency while making this comparison, or should I convert it to GBP currency, as I feel the currency conversion rates would make it look less?

CC: @Akash_Joshi @Francisca_Chiedu

5
  • performance letters highlighting your contributions only don’t meet the criteria. OC3 is about showing impact (in quantified company metrics) of your contributions and not just your contributions. Does the letter specifically say that because of your contributions the company revenue increased by X% and the company expanded to Y geographies? If not, generic letters without metrics aren’t sufficient.
  • Salary and appraisals are removed from OC3 as valid in latest guidelines
  • Participating in talks evidence also needs to show how it advanced the sector
  • Internal talks and events are not valid as per guidelines
  • getting contacted by founders and company interviews are not valid proofs of recognition as per guidelines. This is invalid evidence and will do more harm than good if included as TN will flag it as invalid.
  • salary proofs are just supporting proofs insufficient to prove any criteria - also mentioned in guidelines. If you want to use your country’s currency please also provide pay scale benchmarking in the same currency.
1 Like
6

Hello @pahuja ,

Thank you very much for your kind reviews and feedback.

I have reviewed and revised the evidence I plan to submit for each criterion.

  • MC1 EV4 (High Renumeration):
    • History of earnings for 6 months
    • Benchmarking salary with Payscale in my home country
    • Significant Salary Increase Letter from Company HR (more than 20%)
    • Employment Offer Letter showing my pay and other bonuses

NB → OC2 EV3: I have removed the internal tech talk and will instead include the external tech talk + CTO Reference I was invited to speak at.

For OC2 and OC3, I have updated the evidence to the following:

  • Recognition for Work Outside Immediate Occupation
    → OC2 EV1: File – Public GitHub Profile
    → OC2 EV2: File – StackOverflow Profile (Reputation, Answers)
    → OC2 EV3: File – Technical Talks on Twitter Space + CTO Reference Letter (170+ Listeners), Google Slides (Main Speaker)

  • Significant Technical Contribution
    → OC3 EV1: File – Company D Head of Products Reference
    → OC3 EV2: File – Technical Contribution to Published Academic Article(The name was not listed as the author, but the professor acknowledged my contribution. Includes evidence of my technical input and a screenshot of the journal referencing the implementation.)
    → OC3 EV3: File – Project (From Company D, E, G, M) Technical Product Contribution:
    Content:

    • Git Commits Contributions - Company D
    • Architectural Diagram Contribution - Company E (Shows my name as the Creator on LucidChart)
    • Architectural Diagram - Company D (Shows my name as the Creator on LucidChart)
    • Database Design of X project Contribution - Company G (Shows my name as the Creator on LucidChart)
    • Git Commits Contributions - Company M

Lastly @pahuja, do you suggest I remove the Technical Talk Interview Evidence with CTO while I disregard the other evidence of the invites from the CEO of the company? Will the Technical Talk Interview Evidence combined with Stack Overflow still stands or I should just leave it only with StackOverflow Profile Evidence?

I will be glad if you can also review my new changes.

Thank you very much!

CC: @pahuja @Akash_Joshi

7

Hi @pahuja @Akash_Joshi @Francisca_Chiedu ,

Please help review my final documents I wish to submit above.

Thanks in advance.

8

something here is a bit confusing. For the mandatory criteria - is the idea to provide evidences for atleast 4 of the bullet points outlined in the guide or to only select 1 bullet point - then provide 4 evidences for it ?
I’ve noticed that @integral_codex selected only 1 bullet point MC1 and provided 4 evidence

The guide;
Mandatory Criteria: At least 2 unique documents showing you are recognised as either a leading talent or potential talent.

9

Hello @biguenia ,

Thank you for joining the conversation to help review.

So the last post was meant to let @pahuja know about the update and the content of the High renumeration will contain.

Overal this is the document I wish to submit below:

Required Documents:
→ Personal Statement and CV

LORs:
→ CTO of Company A (Knows my work for 2yrs)
→ Principal Engineer at Company J (Knows my work for 1yr+)
→ Engineering Manager at Company H (knows my work for 3yrs+)

MANDATORY CRITERIA 1:
Led or contributed to a large technology-led industry initiative
→ MC EV1: File – Company A CEO Reference
→ MC EV2: File – Company A Product Contributions (Code Commits, Screenshots, Customer Testimonial)
→ MC EV3: File – Company D Product Contributions (Screenshots, News Clippings, Revenue Growth)
→ MC EV4: File – Employment Letters & Salary Track Record with Local Benchmark & Appraisal Letter with 20% increase in salary (Bank Statement and Payslips, intend to present it with the home country base currency)

OPTIONAL CRITERIA 2:
Recognition for Work Outside Immediate Occupation
→ OC2 EV1: File – Public GitHub Profile
→ OC2 EV2: File – StackOverflow Profile (Reputation, Answers)
→ OC2 EV3: File – Technical Talks on Twitter Space + CTO Reference Letter (170+ Listeners), Google Slides (Main Speaker)

OPTIONAL CRITERIA 3:
Significant Technical Contribution
→ OC3 EV1: File – Company D Head of Products Reference
→ OC3 EV2: File – Technical Contribution to Published Academic Article(The name was not listed as the author, but the professor acknowledged my contribution. Includes evidence of my technical input and a screenshot of the journal referencing the implementation.)
→ OC3 EV3: File – Project (From Company D, E, G, M) Technical Product Contribution:
Contents:

  • Git Commits Contributions - Company D
  • Architectural Diagram Contribution - Company E (Shows my name as the Creator on LucidChart)
  • Architectural Diagram - Company D (Shows my name as the Creator on LucidChart)
  • Database Design of X project Contribution - Company G (Shows my name as the Creator on LucidChart)
  • Git Commits Contributions - Company M
  • Git Commits Contributions - Company D
  • Architectural Diagram Contribution - Company E (Shows my name as the Creator on LucidChart)
  • Architectural Diagram - Company D (Shows my name as the Creator on LucidChart)
  • Database Design of X project Contribution - Company G (Shows my name as the Creator on LucidChart)
  • Git Commits Contributions - Company M

I have a question:
In my Public GitHub Profile Evidence, I include GitHub evidence of my technical contribution to a published academic journal.

For my OC3 Evidence 2 (EV2), the content will include both the journal publication evidence and the GitHub technical contribution related to the academic journal.

Is it okay for me to showcase the GitHub code contribution on my public profile and briefly describe it there, and then also provide more detailed information about it in OC3 EV2, along with the journal publication contribution?

@biguenia @pahuja @Akash_Joshi @Francisca_Chiedu

10

@pahuja @Francisca_Chiedu please can you help take a look

11

MC: how do any of these evidences relate to industry?
OC2: online speaking events are not considered valid per guidelines.
OC3: contribution to article is not valid. You need to show impact in terms of companys core metrics through your work contribution and the impact needs to be validated by third party evidence. Just showing contribution won’t work.

12

Hello @pahuja ,
Thank you for your response.

So the MC evidences shows my contribution to the industry through impact and innovation of product where I have worked with evidences with news clipping stating the commercial success of the product. Will that not work under MC ?

OC3 evidence I am using is not under a company. Does the evidence have to be linked to a Company ? It was a significant technical contribution I made to the success of the Journal. That won’t be considered valid?

13

Does the news mention your name?

Contribution to journal is not valid under OC3, it has to be contribution that led to commercial success in a product-led digital technology company.

14

Hello @pahuja,

No the news did not mention my name directly and I am banking on the Reference letter and my contributions to the products with metrics. I came up with these evidences for MC because of these sample evidence TechNation mentioned here:

You led the growth of a product-led digital technology company, product or team inside a digital technology company, as evidenced by reference letter(s) from leading industry expert(s) describing your work, or as evidenced by news clippings, lines of code from public repos or similar evidence.

Given the above the Evidence, won’t still be valid until my name is mentioned?

15

The letter should clearly mention your contribution and its impact and further any industry impact or recognition

1 Like
16

Yes, @Pahuja, the letter outlines my contributions in detail, highlighting both national and international impact in the fintech space — demonstrating influence in my home country and in other African markets.

Also for my OC3 EV2:

→ OC3 EV2: File – Technical Contribution to Published Academic Article(The name was not listed as the author, but the professor acknowledged my contribution. Includes evidence of my technical input and a screenshot of the journal referencing the implementation.)

I will move it to OC2 EV2, which is recognition outside work.

I hope that works @pahuja .

1 Like