GTV (Exceptional Promise) Full-stack/AI software engineer + early-stage founder: feedback on MC and recommender choice before submitting

Stage 1: Tech Nation Endorsement
1

Greetings Community Members,

I’d appreciate honest feedback before I submit (target: late November, early December). Exceptional Promise, Digital Technology, first attempt. Being brutal honest is welcome, I’d rather hear it now than from endorsement rejection.

Background (~3 years in tech, all UK-based since 2023)

  • 2020–2023: BSc Applied Computer Science (EU), full-time & part time dev roles (C++, cloud).
  • 2023–2024: MSc Data Science & AI at a London university, Distinction. Thesis selected (1 of 3 in cohort) presented on uni-led AI Conference with around 40-50 participants.
  • Mar–May 2024: product development intern at a global children’s entertainment company. Co-developed the MVP of a data-health tool that found a 30% gap in incorrect asset monetisation; it’s now a core internal system, did R&D for other core system.
  • Jul 2024–Jul 2025: remote contract for a US logistics-permits business; built their customer ordering portal end to end.
  • Dec 2024–present: full-stack engineer at a London fintech (proprietary trading-challenge platform, 700k+ registered users). Joined as the 3rd engineer. Rebuilt finance reporting after a CRM migration broke it; worked the migration weekend of a company acquisition and now own the acquired brand’s website; built a customer-reviews system end to end (scrapers → PostgreSQL → API → React, 5 Go microservices on Kubernetes, 10k+ reviews, used daily by the Support team). Signed KPI review from the CTO states I delivered it end-to-end.
  • Dec 2024–present: paid research with my former MSc supervisor. Co-author on 4 papers; our paper won Best Research Paper at an international AI-for-social-good conference in April 2026 (Springer proceedings).
  • 2026: co-founded an AI-driven safety tech company (3 co-founders; I’m a director with around quarter of company value and lead product/tech). Built public website, releasing demo app on Goole Store and App Store in next 1-2 weeks, pre-revenue, other products in development, backed by the university, no grant yet. All products are research-based including papers mentioned above. Plan is to open Community Interest Company soon to build public datasets, do research, everything open-source, public benefit oriented.

Current structure

  • MC (two pieces would be best): (a) founder/technical lead of a new product-led digital tech company – Companies House, working demo, IP; (b) led the growth of a product inside a tech company – the entertainment company data-health tool, co-led development on first production release, spotting gap in revenue, now its a core internal system, evidenced by former manager’s letter + screenshots. Considering (c) open source, but repos may need to stay private for IP reasons.
  • OC3 – three pieces of personal technical contribution at the fintech (above), each with signed KPI/performance data, plus a letter from the former Head of Technology (now a founder elsewhere).
  • OC4 – Best Paper Award + Distinction; publication list; letter from a second academic (not my supervisor); plus a research dashboard I built that my supervisor used in published studies.

Recommenders (3 main): Head of Operations at the fintech (direct manager); Director of AI Products at the entertainment company (former line manager, ex-Revolut/Antler); Reader & Programme Director at the university (supervisor, co-author, has supported successful GTV applicants before). Supporting letters: the US client; the former Head of Technology.

Questions

  1. MC is my weak spot. Is “co-founder of a pre-revenue company” + “manager letter for a product MVP” enough for 2 MC items at Promise level? Should I move the Best Paper Award to MC (as external recognition) and build OC4 on the publications + Distinction + academic letter instead?
  2. All three recommenders are from my direct circle (manager, ex-manager, supervisor). How much does that hurt, and if I could replace one, which one? Does a Director of AI Products at a large non-tech-sector company count as an “established expert in digital technology”?
  3. OC3 / product-led: the fintech sells trading challenges run on its own proprietary platform. Is that product-led in assessors’ eyes, or will it be read as financial services? How should the evidence header frame it?
  4. OC4: the guide says “top-tier journal”. Is a best-paper award from a peer-reviewed international conference (Springer proceedings) + Distinction + supervisor letter enough, or is it a weak OC4?
  5. Open source for MC: worth including if only infrastructure/tooling repos can be public, or does a thin public footprint do more harm than good? And does the research tooling belong under OC4 rather than MC?

Thanks for reading through. @Akash_Joshi @Noddy if you have a moment, your feedback would be greatly appreciated.

2

Quick update - I’ve reworked the MC since posting and would like a sanity check on one piece.

MC (a) is now two documents under one heading (founder / technical lead of a new product-led company):

  1. The company itself — Companies House, working demo (app stores this month), IP, website.
  2. External recognition from the university’s incubator programme, Dec 2024 to now. I was selected for a place in 2024 but had to decline because of a work commitment; reapplied in 2025 and was rejected, with written feedback from the panel (sharper USP, evidence of need, competitor analysis). I acted on it: the research won the best paper award in April, we incorporated the company over the summer, and the programme lead referred me to structured 1:1 coaching with the university’s Head of R&D and Innovation, which wraps up this month. I’m reapplying as the company when applications open in November. Evidence: a letter from the programme lead covering the whole arc, a short dated note from the coach, and the email trail. Results from the incubator programme placement will come around December - so if successful I plan to add it just before the submission.

Two questions:

  • Does a documented rejection with a visible response read as a positive signal to assessors (taking expert feedback seriously, measurable progress), or is it safer to show only the selection and the coaching?
  • Is 1 + 2 enough for MC at Promise level, or does it still lean too much on OC4-type evidence?

Still keen on views on the original questions, especially 1 and 2.

3

Include the rejection only as part of the progression, not as recognition. The panel’s specific feedback, your response, and subsequent coaching are relevant; keep the selection, feedback, coaching and company progress factual. Don’t imply the November reapplication or pending decision is an outcome. If successful, add it before submission.

The company and incubator journey may support Promise MC, but incorporation, a demo and coaching alone do not prove recognition of potential. Explain how selective the incubator was and why you were chosen; the tailored referral is useful context. Treat the internal product separately if your manager substantiates your contribution and adoption/impact. The Best Paper Award could be stronger MC evidence if it recognises your individual digital-technology contribution; otherwise it fits OC4 more naturally. Avoid double-counting.

Direct-circle referees are not automatically a problem if they have relevant standing and provide distinct first-hand evidence. The Director of AI Products may qualify as a digital-technology expert; establish their expertise beyond the title. For OC3, show that the fintech’s core offering relies on its proprietary platform, then evidence your technical contribution and impact; assessors decide classification. A peer-reviewed conference award can support OC4, but award scope, selectivity and your authorship matter. Distinction and a supervisor letter alone do not establish research impact. Public infrastructure repositories help only if they demonstrate substantive work; omit thin or IP-constrained material.

4

Thank you @Akash_Joshi - much appreciated productive feedback!

5

@Adam_Maka, under which discipline are you applying: Full Stack Engineer, Researcher, or Data Scientist?

Looking at your background, you appear to have experience or qualification across all three areas. However, I’d advise against presenting yourself as a jack of all trades. It can weaken your positioning as a recognised expert in a specific field. It’s usually better to be very clear about the discipline you’re applying under and build your evidence around that.

Regarding your evidence:

Being a Founder or Technical Lead of a product led digital technology company can back your claims on how you led the development of a product and influenced the company’s direction. However, documents from Companies House and a working product demo alone won’t really show your leadership as a technical founder. Likewise, open source code by itself may show that you built something, but it doesn’t clearly demonstrate how you led the company or shaped the product strategy.

The same applies to your OC3 evidence. KPI data on its own does not demonstrate technical contribution. Also, the company needs to be a product led digital technology business.Letters, regardless of who writes them, support the evidence rather than be the evidence itself.

As for the Best Paper Award, it shows recognition of your research capability, but on its own it doesn’t demonstrate that the research contributed to or advanced the sector. It becomes much stronger if you can show real impact through citations, downloads, readership, industry references, conference presentations, or evidence of adoption. Academic distinctions can strengthen your overall narrative, but they do not automatically prove sector impact.

The research dashboard you built for your supervisor may also be viewed as having limited sector relevance unless you can demonstrate that it has been adopted or used beyond that immediate environment.

My suggestion would be to spend some time carefully reviewing the Tech Nation guidance and assessing how your evidence aligns with the requirements. Based on what you’ve listed so far, I think there’s still some work to do in terms of gathering stronger evidence that directly matches the criteria and strengthens your case.

All the best.

6

MC is probably your weakest area. Since you mentioned that you welcome honest feedback, I’ll be candid. Looking at the evidence overall, it feels quite weak at the moment and doesn’t clearly align with the criteria.

I’d suggest taking some time to build stronger, more relevant evidence before applying. Doing that will significantly improve your chances of success.

All the best.

7

Thank you @Raphael , I appreciate the candid review. I do need to think carefully about timing and approach. The complication is a hard deadline as my current visa expires early next year, so waiting isn’t really an option.

8

@Adam_Maka I completely understand the pressure you’re under with your timeline, and I genuinely sympathise with your situation. My feedback wasn’t meant to discourage you, but rather to help you clearly understand where the strengths and weaknesses of your current listing stand. Knowing that reality can actually put you in a better position to prepare, strengthen weaker areas where possible, and avoid relying on evidence that does not carry the weight you hope it will.

9

Thank you that’s all good, realy appreciate your input @Raphael! Its really the best approach to receive detailed / honest feedback now rather from endorsement body. Now I can try address the weaknesses before the submission with no major surprises.

Kind regards.