Help review my supporting material

I am a software engineer / manager with > 10 years of experience. Been through an IPO, acquisition, and worked at 2 of FAANG. Not a founder yet but wondering if the below would work for promise or talent. I redacted some information thought I can share the companies in DMs, all are name brand.

The theme of my move to UK and my career would be Big Data and AI/ML in product led organizations. Would contribute that in the UK.

Engineering Manager / Leader at product led Tech Unicorn (> 300M in MRR)
Doc 1 - Show org chart (I have 5 engineers under me)
Doc 2 - Show videos of the product we are building
Doc 3 - Show amount of MRR we are generating from our products
Doc 4 - Show Employment letter and salary, in top 99% of compensation relative to UK and my age

Senior Engineer (AI/ML org) at Apple

Doc 5- Show Employment letter and salary, in top 99% of compensation relative to UK and my age
Doc 6- Videos of the product that we built running on mobile phones

Senior Engineer at product led Tech Unicorn, >1B in revenue (product led company)

Doc 7- Show Github repo (14k stars) and myself as the number one contributor in the project for autonomous vehicles
Doc 8- Show blog post around the project
Doc 9 - Show employment letter
Doc 10? - Picture of me at the IPO event

Engineer at small product led startup that got acquired
Doc 10? Employment letter?

Engineer at Amazon
Doc 10? Employment letter?

Engineer at Research Institute →
Doc 10? Publication in IEEE/ACM (quantum computing research)

You have a laudable profile and even though most of them are internally strong evidences, they do not show how you have been recognised from an external point of view especially as an Exceptional Talent.

Most applicants normally like to equate working in FAANG/MAANG as counting for much but it’s really more about you in such cases.

However, I think :point_down:t4::point_down:t4:this option is the strongest of the three Doc 10.

Engineer at Research Institute →
Doc 10? Publication in IEEE/ACM (quantum computing research)

Also, all your Employment Letters should be merged under Doc 9 instead. With this, you would have an additional space to include **Doc 10? - Picture of me at the IPO event**.

In addition, can you share how you intend to split the evidences across the criteria? That can assist with getting better insights from the forum.

1 Like

Thanks @ask4jubad

My one fear with that publication is that I am not working in quantum computing anymore, but more focused on applied AI/ML and big data systems at product led companies. If everything doesn’t need to be 100% thematic I can add it :slight_smile:

Should I go for Exceptional Promise instead of Talent? Or am I too old for the promise route (early 30s and been in tech for a decade)?

Below I list some ideas for MC and OCs. Would love your input @ask4jubad. If i go for Exceptional talent, I would change the OC and MC to be the equivalent of the exceptional promise.

  • Mandatory criteria:
    • This part is confusing to me. Its kind of vague mention about being recognized. Does this mean this mean awards, titles, media publications, etc?
  • Optional Criteria options:
    • Publication Quantum computing → at least 1 example of exceptional ability in the field by academic contributions through research endorsed by an expert.
    • Commercial product my team is building at Unicorn # 1→ at least 1 example of significant technical, commercial or entrepreneurial contributions to the field as a founder or employee of a product-led digital technology company
    • Lead contributor github repo -> at least 1 example of innovation as a founder of a product led digital technology company or as an employee working on a new digital field or concept


First, you should apply for Talent because of the years of experience.

Second, you should note that you can only have the MC and another two OCs. So you need to figure out how you intend to distribute the evidences across the OCs.

Third, you can use the same evidence for multiple criteria insofar that it meets the requirement.

Regarding your question,

Mandatory criteria:
This part is confusing to me. Its kind of vague mention about being recognized. Does this mean this mean awards, titles, media publications, etc.?

Yes, it means all those. For instance, have you had like an MIT Innovator Award or invited to speak at an Industry-level tech conference or the likes or have you published in a reputable conference proceeding or journal? These are all acceptable examples.

So, as an example, you could have the paper that you published under MC as well as under OC4 (or just under the MC) since you can have other evidences for OC1, OC2 and OC3. Your 14k star Github repo can also go for MC and OC3 at the same time.

More importantly, you have to really digest the tech nation guide. There are examples of what qualifies as MC or OCs accordingly.

I would recommend that you ask one or more senior persons to write reference letters speaking specifically to your contributions in your different product-led companies.

Take a look at another prospective applicant’s profile and the suggestions given by Alexnk, Help review my application (Talent, Business)


@ask4jubad wow that link is super useful! Going through it and now re-organizing everything.

1 Like

@ask4jubad OK here is my updated evidence (edited). Are org charts showing my leadership a good enough explanation? Show MRR and technical product videos maybe?

Does this look ok? Rework the criteria to not be as overweight on OSS?


How do I demonstrate that I have been recognised as (or recognised as having the potential to be) a leading talent in the digital technology sector in the last 5 years?

Outside of your normal day-to-day job role, you led or were a significant contributor to a substantial open source project, as evidenced from compilation of code commit summaries, repo stars or similar metrics such as download statistics, where possible

  1. Top Contributor to OSS project #1 (14k stars), owned be a MMAANG company and startup that I worked at
  2. Top contributors to OSS project #2 (32k stars)
  3. Pay stubs from two of my employers showing my high renumeration as well as showing that I am paid higher than my peers in the region and globally.
    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
  4. Letter from industry expert on my work at the startup the IPO’d

OC 1

How do I demonstrate that I have been recognised for my work outside of my immediate occupation that contributed to the advancement of the sector?

Evidence of contributions to an Open Source project
4. Top Contributor to OSS1 (14k+ stars)
5. Top 100 contributors to OSS2 (32k stars)
6. Contribution to OSS3 (30k stars)

OC 2
How do I demonstrate that I have made a significant technical, commercial or entrepreneurial contributions to the field as a founder, senior executive, board member or employee of a product-led digital technology company?

  1. Documentation on product designs or architecture diagram clearly showing your contribution → Technical design diagrams showing the system our team built
  2. Letter from current Employer explaining contributions to the product and that I manage a team of 6 engineers senior → senior staff level
  3. Show videos of product we are building? Me at IPO event? MRR?
  4. ACM/IEEE publication
1 Like

I think so far, you are on track. Quite frankly, I believe that Item 9 does not add any value - I’d opine you get a reference letter from a superior that talks about your contributions to the current product that you are building and also mentions that you are managing a team of 6 senior engineers (this is a much stronger evidence for OC3 according to the TN guide).

For item 7, you shouldn’t just mention that you are a high earner, you must demonstrate it by describing how you compare to others in your field/position and country/region/globally. Mind you item 3 and 7 are the same. So you still have space for one additional evidence (you can break item 10 in two - ).

It appears that you have removed your IEEE/ACM publication which can easily pass for MC and OC2. In this regard, I’d combine items 5 and 6, then create an opening for the IEEE/ACM publication.

But you really don’t want to submit wrong evidences to the wrong criterion because your current OC1 is actually OC2 and your current OC2 is actually OC3.

1 Like

Ah I meant its my first OC and my second OC. that was confusing. Editing that now to reflect the OCs as you pointed out. And editing to combine things

The IEEE/ACM application, should I put that under MC or OC? I put it under OC2 for now but I thought it is just OC4 so I omitted it.

I’d advise to put it under MC and OC2.

For MC, it qualifies for this:

  • Published material in professional or major trade publications or major media about the applicant related to the applicant’s work in the digital technology sector. You must include the title, date and evidence that you are the author of such published material and any necessary translation.

For OC2, it can be used as contribution outside-normal-work.

@yankee should be under your current OC1

Only thing is that is is 10 year old publication. Doesn’t all evidence have to be <= 5 years old?

My gut feeling is that some evidences are stronger the longer they are such as in the case of a publication. The more people have cited it for instance (which is a function of time), the stronger it is.

My opinion: I strongly recommend to include it.

Evidence should be within the last 5 years.