Of these two pieces of evidence, which one stands a better chance?

I am trying to fit in my last piece of evidence for mandatory criteria but both seem to have a very tiny issue. Here are the evidences and some context:

  1. I served as a panelist in 2018 on an interactive panel on ways to advance the adoption and sustained implementation of tech in the northern part of my country. This is work outside my day-today role but at the time I was addressed/labeled as the founder of a tech service company (not digital product led).
  2. While working as an employee at a digital product-led startup, I gave a talk at a conference about software architecture and my talk was about software teams and how to lead them. This was April 2 - 5 2017. New TN guideline coming into effect on April 6th, 2022 states that “All evidence submitted for both Exceptional Talent and Exceptional Promise must have relevance within the last 5 years from the date of application.”. I plan to apply for stage 1 this April (most likely after the 6th).

So my question is, of the two evidences above which one gives me a better standing (I have 3 other evidences for MC and want to use one of these as the 4th), the one for work outside my day-to-day role where I was labeled as the founder/ceo of a tech service (non digital product-led) company or the one where I gave a talk outside my day-to-day role at a digital product-led startup but timing falls outside 5 years when the actual date is considered but still within 5 years when just the month is considered when I apply this April? (see upcoming new TN rules here https://technation.io/visa/important-updates/) @Francisca_Chiedu @Savvkin any ideas to point me in the right direction? Anyone with insights into this can help as well. Thanks.