GTV (Digital Tech) — Initial Screening: 5.5 yrs FAANG SWE, Promise vs Talent?

Stage 1
1

Hi everyone :wave: I’m planning to apply for the GTV (Digital Technology) and would really appreciate an initial sense-check from the community, as I’m still quite new to the process.

Background

  • Role: Software Engineer (Full Stack)
  • Experience: ~5.5 years total
  • Location: All experience based in the US
  • Companies:
    • FAANG Company A — 3.5 years, entry level → mid level
    • FAANG Company B — 2 years, mid level

Reference Letters (planned)

  1. RL1: Former manager at Company A → now Director of Engineering at a smaller company
  2. RL2: Manager → later skip manager at Company B
  3. RL3: Tech Lead at Company B (2 levels above me)

Proposed Evidence Structure

:green_square: Mandatory Criterion (Leadership)

  • Project 1 (Company B)
    • My largest and highest-impact project
    • 0 → 1 initiative, senior-level scope
    • Supported by RL2 which will talk about business impact, leadership, and delivery ownership
  • Promotion letter (Company B)
    • Supported by RL1, shows progression from early-career engineer → leadership trajectory
  • Compensation letters (Companies A & B)
    • Demonstrates compensation above London market average (US-based + FAANG)

:blue_square: Optional Criterion 1 – Innovation

  • Project 2 (Company B)
    • Smaller than Project 1, but fully designed and implemented by me
    • Solved a clear customer pain point
  • Reference letter from a direct customer
    • Her title: Technical Artist Lead
    • Describes how the solution in project 2 addressed real-world needs and improved outcomes

:yellow_square: Optional Criterion 3 – Significant Contribution

  • Contributions at Company A
    • Long-term work on the same service
    • Supported by public articles/blogs about the service and my direct work.
  • Reference letter
    • From another manager at Company A (now Senior Manager, still there)
  • Performance evidence
    • Strong performance ratings at both Company A and B
    • Performance document from Company A may be unavailable, but this will be supported via manager reference letters

Questions I’d Love Feedback On

1. Exceptional Promise vs Exceptional Talent

  • With ~5.5 years of experience, which route would be more realistic and defensible in my case?

2. Project allocation across criteria

  • Project 1 is my strongest project and could arguably support MC, OC1, and OC3
  • For OC1 (Innovation) specifically, Project 1 is stronger than Project 2

Would you recommend:

  • Keeping my strongest project under the MC, or
  • Moving Project 1 to OC1 and using Project 2 to support MC?
  • Or keeping project 2 in OC1, including project 1 in both MC and OC1 but demonstrate from different angles?

3. Additional evidence selection

  • I currently have 8 pieces of evidence and can submit up to 2 more.
  • Which of the following would add the most value?

Options:

  • A reference letter from a Senior Engineer at Company A — we worked closely for ~2 years on the same service, and she can clearly demonstrate my contributions for OC3
  • Evidence from another smaller project at Company B
  • A reference letter from another Technical Artist or Senior Engineer at Company B

Appreciate any feedback! Thanks in advance!

@Raphael @Akash_Joshi

2

@Jingxuan_Li Having over five years of experience as a Software Engineer in one of the world’s most influential and high performing tech companies already speaks volumes about your value. It also makes you eligible, and yes the calibre of the company hiring you strengthens your overall narrative.

Your LORs seem fine at first glance. Since you’ve worked in FAANG, I’m assuming your referees are managers from these companies. Still, it’s worth checking their LinkedIn profiles to ensure they meet the tech expert criteria outlined in the guidance.

On MC

What evidence are you presenting for the 0 to 1 initiative and senior level scope? This criterion is about demonstrating recognition of what you did that has contributed to the sector, in the last 5 years. Also, remember that a reference letter is not evidence on its own, it only validates the evidence you provide. A promotion letter shows internal recognition, but you still need to demonstrate what you were recognised for. For compensation, salary alone isn’t enough; you must show how your work contributed to the wider sector.

OC1

What evidence are you providing to show ownership of the design and implementation? How did you solve the customer pain point, and what were the outcomes? You need metrics based evidence that shows results. Letters should reference evidence, not replace it. OC1 is about innovation, and based on your description, nothing presented so far clearly demonstrates invention or innovation.

OC3

Similar to the above, your description reads more like a narrative than evidence. You also have reference letters across all criteria, which weakens your application. Since you’re technical, you should focus on how you built, improved, or optimised something. The reference letters should then confirm your claims and highlight the commercial impact of your work.

I strongly recommend reading the Tech Nation guidance again, along with relevant posts on this platform, so you’re clear on what is required.

All the best.

3

Thanks for the feedback @Raphael! Some follow-up questions:

Q1: Regarding Promise vs Talent, if my main goal is to secure an endorsement and I’m not concerned about 3 vs. 5-year visa length, would you say applying for Promise give me a higher chance? As I have a little more than 5 years and am worried they gotta reject me for having >5 yoe under Promise.

Q2: How should I structure my OC Evidences: I worked at companyA on the same service and led two main projects, should I:

  • Option A: Submit E1 for the whole service (listing both projects as contributions), and E2 as two endorsement letters (each from an SDM who witnessed my contributions on each project)?

  • Option B: Submit E1 for project 1 + endorsement letter 1, and E2 for project 2 + endorsement letter 2?

Q3: For OC1 innovation, I decided to use 0->1 initiative, since I only have this one project to fit into this criteria, but Tech Nation says “at least 2 pieces of evidence” for each OC, would it work if I do E1 as a technical deep-dive of the project and E2 as evidence of visibility/recognition for the project mentioned in E1? For instance, I can provide director-level visibility of it and wider adoption. Will this be considered as 2 evidences and enough or this is considered as 1 evidence since they’re for the same initiative?

Q4: For MC, you mentioned “salary alone isn’t enough; you must show how your work contributed to the wider sector.”, would you say salary + market value and state that I am a lot more above average pay for the same role same level can be considered as a valid evidence for MC? I’ll have another evidence talking about a project I did in companyB.

4

If your primary goal is simply securing an endorsement, Promise does not give you a higher chance in all honesty. What matters is whether your evidence aligns with the pathway you’re going with. Having slightly over 5 years of experience does not disqualify you for Promis, you just need to clearly tell Tech Nation your reasons. I believe, they will then look at the stage of your impact, vis-a-vis your experience and make their decision.

Q2: How should I structure my OC Evidences: I worked at companyA on the same service and led two main projects, should I:

  • Option A: Submit E1 for the whole service (listing both projects as contributions), and E2 as two endorsement letters (each from an SDM who witnessed my contributions on each project)?
  • Option B: Submit E1 for project 1 + endorsement letter 1, and E2 for project 2 + endorsement letter 2?

Between your two options, I believe clarity and coherence matter more than format.

Option A risks becoming too broad and unfocused.
Option B is cleaner, one project per evidence, each supported by a internally validated letter.

So, I think Option B s the stronger structure.

Q3: For OC1 innovation, I decided to use 0->1 initiative, since I only have this one project to fit into this criteria, but Tech Nation says “at least 2 pieces of evidence” for each OC, would it work if I do E1 as a technical deep-dive of the project and E2 as evidence of visibility/recognition for the project mentioned in E1? For instance, I can provide director-level visibility of it and wider adoption. Will this be considered as 2 evidences and enough or this is considered as 1 evidence since they’re for the same initiative?

I think you can use one initiative as long as you provide two distinct pieces of evidence . A technical deep dive E1 + visibility/adoption/recognition E2 could counts as two separate evidences, if strategically presented to demonstrate different aspects of the same innovation. Make sure each evidence stands on its own and shows measurable distinct outcomes.

Q4: For MC, you mentioned “salary alone isn’t enough; you must show how your work contributed to the wider sector.”, would you say salary + market value and state that I am a lot more above average pay for the same role same level can be considered as a valid evidence for MC? I’ll have another evidence talking about a project I did in companyB.

I was quoting what the guidance states, salary alone is not enough, your salary plus market benchmarking can be okay for MC, if it’s tied to sector level impact. Showing that you’re paid significantly above market rate can also helps, but it should be positioned as a result of your contributions. Also, pairing with another evidence from Company B can help strengthen the evidence set.

All the best.