Feedback request on planned evidence structure - Exceptional Promise (1st Application)

Stage 1
1

Hi all,

I’m aiming to apply for the Exceptional Promise in the coming weeks, and I’d really appreciate feedback on my planned evidence structure before I submit.

Background

  • BSc Computer Science, then MSc in AI / Machine Learning completed in the UK.
  • ~4 years of professional experience as an ML/AI engineer
  • Experience spans four employers (an early-stage UK startup, a Swiss sportstech startup, a large product company, and an AI company)

MC-1 Technical contribution to X company, validated by a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentation Role: ML Research Engineer, ~4 months, as one of the company’s first employees.

  • Description of the specific component I built and how it feeds into the product, framed around impact within a short tenure.
  • The co-authored, peer-reviewed paper as independent validation
  • Architecture diagrams I authored, plus performance metrics.
  • Proof of presenting the paper: organiser email and conference programme listing my talk.
  • Reason for not choosing to go for OC4 for this evidence - the conference is not top tier

MC-2 Commanded high remuneration relative to the market Role: Software Engineer at a product-led company.

  • Context: position, responsibilities, and what made the contribution exceptional
  • Evidence: contract, payslips, and a salary comparison against same-role, same-seniority market data, expressed as a percentile or multiplier over the relevant benchmark.

MC-3 Built the core AI video-recognition system at Y company, as one of three employees Role: AI/research engineer, ~6 months, building the product and its underlying research.

  • The recognition system I developed and its role in the Y company engine, scoped precisely to my contribution.
  • Architecture diagrams and PR/GitHub screenshots.
  • Embedded recommendation letter from the company founder.
  • Embedded letter from a client involved in the integration, naming my role.

MC-4 Recognition of emerging AI/ML talent: selected 1 of X students for an ICLondon industry-research placement, with the resulting capability adopted into Z company product

  • Selected from X students for the MSc industry-research route; produced a novel NLP/AI capability, stated as a specific gap it addressed.
  • Evidence of the competitive selection: written confirmation from the Imperial assessor, stating the pool size.
  • Evidence of adoption into the product: confirmation letter from Z company
  • Later invited to present the work at an Imperial AI workshop in front of industry attendees: programme and confirmation from the selecting assessor.

Optional Criteria 2 (2 evidences)

OC2-1 Teaching AI to 200+ mentees over 3+ years through a structured, selective mentorship program

  • My role as instructor within a program that has defined mentee-selection criteria and structure.
  • Embedded recommendation letter from the organisation’s CEO.
  • Embedded letter from a state unemployment agency that referred trainees to the program, naming me (independent corroboration).
  • Teaching materials (GitHub) as screenshots; learner outcomes where available.

OC2-2 Co-organising tech events and hackathons at a non-profit, connecting industry practitioners with 1000+ attendees

  • My specific organising role across the events, with coherent figures for events held and total reach.
  • Embedded recommendation letter from the head of the organisation.
  • embedded; event links and recordings as backup.
  • Embedded letter from a collaborating organisation.

Optional Criteria 3 (2 evidences)

OC3-1 Significant technical contribution as an employee of a product-led company: Engineer, at B company ~2 years.

  • My specific contribution to a system used by the majority of banks in my country
  • Technical explanation, architecture, and PR/GitHub screenshots.
  • Embedded letter from the B CTO outlining my role on the project.
  • Embedded letter from a client naming my contribution.

OC3-2 Significant technical contribution as an employee: second B company project

  • A distinct project at the same company, with my contribution and the architecture explained.
  • PR/GitHub screenshots.
  • Embedded letter from a different client manager naming my contribution.

How does it look? Do you reckon it’s got a real shot at Exceptional Promise? And would you change the ordering at all, or split any of these evidences down further? Keen to hear any thoughts. Cheers!
@Raphael @Akash_Joshi

2

MC-2 (salary) is the riskiest piece - it needs impact beyond “commanded high pay.” The Official Guide explicitly says salary “alone is insufficient; you will have to demonstrate how you have made a significant impact in the sector beyond your day-to-day activities.” If the only story is “I was paid well,” it won’t land. Make sure the evidence shows what you did to earn it, not just that you earned it.

MC-4 (Imperial placement) is strong as framed - competitive selection, adoption into product, invited talk. That’s external validation at every step.

For OC2-1, the state unemployment agency letter is a smart move - genuinely third-party. For OC2-2, make sure the “collaborating organisation” letter is from someone outside your org who can speak to your specific contribution, not just the event’s existence.

OC3 using two projects from the same company is fine, but watch for overlap. Assessors will notice if the client letters sound similar or if the technical contribution descriptions blur together. Keep them sharply distinct.

On ordering: lead with your strongest MC piece. If MC-4 (Imperial) is as clean as it sounds, that might be the opener rather than MC-1.

3

@bel_cam

Hope you’re doing well.

For MC, the focus isn’t contributing to a company. It can be about contributing to an open‑source project that advances the sector, as long as the work is validated or recognised by peers. Your technical contribution to company X could fit better under OC3, depending on the evidence you present. MC is really about leadership, leading a team, leading the development of a product, or leading a tech company as a founder.

You mentioned avoiding OC4 because the conference isn’t top tier. Tech Nation doesn’t restrict top‑tier evidence to a specific criterion. In fact, using that logic, you wouldn’t be able to use it in MC either, since MC is mandatory and OC is optional, which would imply MC is even stricter.

For MC2, salary alone isn’t enough. No matter how high it is, you still need to show how you’ve advanced the sector outside your paid role.

For MC3, MC isn’t about what you built but what you led others to build, or how you led the development effort, or founded a company that built. For MC4, MSc research isn’t considered valid evidence.

OC2‑1: Teaching AI to 200+ mentees over 3+ years does show sustained contribution through knowledge transfer. A letter from a state unemployment agency can help show recognition, but you still need to clearly demonstrate what you actually did. OC2‑2: Co‑organising events can be tricky unless you can show structure, clear evidence of your contribution, and ideally a strong reference letter from a reputable industry figure.

OC3: Saying you contributed to a system used by most banks is still just a description. Also, using two letters for one criterion isn’t advisable. Architecture diagrams can work. PR/GitHub screenshots are fine, but if the repositories are private, which is likely for financial systems, blur the code, show ownership clearly, and support it with a strong letter from a C‑suite executive outlining what you did and the commercial impact. The same applies to the second OC3 evidence, PR/GitHub screenshots of what exactly?

Overall, you have described some good stuffs, however, understanding what each criterion actually requires will help you shape the evidence more effectively.

All the best.