External recognition & questions for Exceptional Talent route

Stage 1
1

My Background:
10 years as a Platform Engineer, Founding Engineer, and Cofounder of digital tech startups

  • (Startup A) 2 years as lead engineer that was acquired for approx. £150 million, financially successful
  • (Startup B) 2 years as platform engineer for my next role, which company was also acquired
  • (Startup C) 1.5 years starting my own company as 50/50 co-founder, released product and had some revenue and small client base but other cofounder had to leave for personal reasons. We dissolved it.
  • (Startup D, current) 10 months into digital startup as founding engineer and CTO, just released AI and platform application and are getting paying customers

Recommendation Letters: My three letters are from people I have worked with previously, but 2 are now successful CTOs at large tech startups, and 1 is the VP of Technology at a mid-size startup.

My Key Questions:

1. Mandatory Criteria Recognition?
I want to use Startup A as my mandatory criteria, since the sale of the company was public, I had significant equity ownership (~1% when acquired), and I can easily demonstrate my technology and leadership impacts. However - I don’t have any real external validation from the guide examples. If I switched one of my LoRs to be a letter specific to my MC, and the author is externally validated and a leader today, would that be sufficient (alongside my equity/comp proof and tech doc examples of my work)?

2. OC2 Contribution outside work?

  • (Ev1) Github code contributions to popular video game modding software (open source), with active users over 700,000. This has been small contributions over the past couple years.
  • (Ev1) Github and website proof of my own developed modding software for the same game/community above, but with 6,000 active users
  • (Ev2) My public security findings for a major software vendor (Gitlab) where I did a bug bounty. I found 3 security vulnerabilities and have CVEs created from my findings, as well as news and release posts crediting me with the findings (unpaid work).

My question: Is the evidence for Ev1 strong enough? And my evidence from Ev2 was from 7 years ago - my understanding is that all evidence should be within 5 years but given the strength of it and not explicitly mentioned in the guide, I was hoping maybe it is still okay?

OC1 Innovation: No question here but I’m planning to use either Startup C or Startup D as proof, as these are relatively innovative digital technology startups. D has a significant AI component that I built myself as the tech founding eng and we now are getting organic revenue selling that feature. But if this is maybe a bad idea, I would love the advice and help!

Appreciate all of the help and the community in this forum!

Final Question/thought: Is the way I’m framing my application the best way? I’m worried there is a better way to re-frame all of my experience and journey for the MC to have more impact.

More context: I’m applying from the US, mid-30s, have previous external validation of winning pitch competitions and securing seed money for a venture in college (10 years ago) which I plan to include in my personal statement at least, and want to relocate to scotland. Not sure if that impacts anything.

2

You’ve got a very solid background. 10 years across platform engineering, founding engineer roles and co‑founding startups already qualifies you for the Talent pathway. Your recommenders also look strong, but do check their LinkedIn to be sure their profiles clearly show the seniority and sector relevance expected.

For MC, using the startup that was acquired is fine, especially with 1% equity and clear tech/leadership impact. But a LoR can’t replace a reference letter for a criterion, they serve different purposes and their what Tech Nation expects from both letters are different. A reference letter validates what you claim. Also, you still need two unique evidence sets that demonstrate external recognition, not just internal success in MC criterion.

On OC2, the open‑source work with 700k users sounds impressive, but user numbers alone don’t prove recognition of your contribution. Downloads or adoption of your work would be stronger. The GitLab CVEs are good technically, but they’re 7 years old, so they fall outside the 5 year window and won’t hold weight. Finding 3 security vulnerabilities and have CVEs does not show sector advancement.

For OC1, having an AI component doesn’t automatically show innovation. You’ll need to demonstrate what was new, innovative about the product, ideally with external validation like patent, not just internal claims.

Your framing is in the right direction, but yes, there’s always a better way. The pitch competition from 10 years ago is too old to use as evidence, but you can mention it subtly in your personal statement it could help your story.

Overall, strong profile, however, going by the current feedbacks, you need more evidence that rightly meet the criteria.

All the best.

1 Like
3

Hi @Raphael thanks so much for the thoughtful reply. I actually posted this quite a while ago but I tried to delete it and somehow it refreshed the post to be more recent.

I already applied - and the application I sent was quite different from what I posted above. Mostly thanks to your’s and others’ feedback on other forum posts.

For transparency, here is what I submitted and how I structured it. Hopefully it helps others!

MC:

  • MC1: letter from engineer at startup A (mentions what I built, and contracts I helped sign)
  • MC2: Commercial Success Validating Technical Leadership - press release from startup acquisition stating reasons why they purchased plus mapped those reasons to the MC1 letter that accredited me as the sole designer/architect/engineer. I also included contract showing my 50% ownership of startup C
  • MC3: High-Value Compensation Demonstrating Exceptional Impact - this was a combo of showing my stock certificates from startup A, the sale price / profit from those shares, and glassdoor salaries showing I made above the highest salary band locally (plus showed my equity grants which added more on top of salary comp)
  • MC4: External Recognition as Technical Expert - showed my contract for lead instructer at a cyber security bootcamp at a top 10 U.S. university and the email of the headhunter and how they found me, a couple more emails that lead to roles from specialized recruitment firms that state my previous startup success, and a final screenshot of an angel investor seeking me to be an advisor at the venture firm.

OC2:

  • OC2.1: Contribution to Digital Open Source Platforms - log of my public open source contributions in a table, along with impact and reference links. I also included my CVEs and the vendor’s recognition of my findings in a news release (even though its more than 5 years ago, the guide only stated the 5 year limit for MC and LoRs… I thought my OC2 was strong enough without my CVEs and included as an “extra” just in case)
  • OC2.2: Validation of Open Source Contributions - screenshot of my open source code mod active user numbers (8,000 at time of app). Included screenshot of the other code mods with over 400,000 active users and my name in the Credits sections (linked with contributions in OC2.1). I also included a video transcript to the popular streamer mentioning my code mod since I had the space.

OC3:

  • OC3.1: Significant Technical Impact as Founder of Startup C - this was a screenshot of technical diagrams, activity logs, and git commits under that Startup’s organization. This tied into previous evidence that shows I was 50% owner, but this completes the story of showing I was in fact the technical leader of the company.
  • OC3.2: Significant Technical Impact through IP Sale - screenshots of the contract IP sale of the company, financial statements showing my personal proceeds from the sale, and the timeline of company role through to the sale.

I might have missed something but that is the overall summary of my application. In hindsight, I probably would’ve done a few things differently (and taken in some of this feedback you mentioned Raphael!) but my main evidence in MC was coming up close to the 5 year deadline. But your feedback on OC1 @Raphael is spot on - which is why I removed it altogether! Its re-assuring to hear that! I included the AI piece in my personal statement instead.

My main concern was the “external recognition” piece, so while my evidence there is a bit weak, it felt like the only way to really convey it. I’ll follow up with the decision when I get it!