My Background:
I have a 14-year career in tech that has evolved through several roles:
8 years as a Software Engineer (including work on critical public infrastructure)
2 years as a Data Analyst
2 years as a Project Manager
Currently transitioning into an AI Researcher role at my current company.
My work now involves the end-to-end process for AI projects: software development, research, design, and data analysis.
My Key Questions:
1. How should I categorize myself?
Given my hybrid background, which category would be most strategic: experienced software engineer, data analyst, or another field?
2. Is my understanding of evidence correct?
I am planning for the following evidence and would appreciate a sense-check:
Mandatory Criterion (Recognition):
**Evidence 1:**Working in progress.
Evidence 2:[I plan to add a public talk here – see question 3] .
Optional Criteria (planning to meet 2):
OC1 (Innovation): A project case study on fine-tuning an LLM for a low-resource language
OC3 (Significant Contribution): A project case study on a large-scale system integration I project-managed.
OC4 (Academic Contribution): A published, peer-reviewed academic paper where I am a co-author
My specific evidence questions are:
This published paper should be under MC or OC?
I see many applicants submit 3 pieces of evidence for the Mandatory Criterion. Is 2 strong pieces (like a paper + an invited talk) sufficient, or is 3 strongly recommended?
I do not have a recent public talk, but I am planning to secure one now. Would Tech Nation view a recently secured speaking engagement negatively, as if I’m just “checking a box,” or is it seen as a positive, proactive step? My WordPress blog has some technical articles—could this also support “recognition”?
Recommendation Letters: I have secured three recommenders: my MSc professor, my current employer, and a previous employer.
Any insights or experiences you can share would be immensely helpful. Thank you in advance for your time and support!
GTV considers last 5 years of your work experience evidences as valid for the application. Hence use the latest one for positioning however in your personal statement you can domain your journey.
Your application outline is weak though.
MC:
a one-off talk yet to happen and close to application date is often flagged. They need to see a track record of such initiatives and not close to date.
only invitation to talk is invalid, participation counts.
personal blogs are not considered as per guidelines.
OCs: you need atleast 2 evidence per OC as per guidelines.
OC1 is about showing contribution to innovation hence you need to show the project to be innovative, your contribution to innovation and market traction along with third party validation. If you cannot demonstrate this then just a project to fine tune a LLM doesn’t fit OC1.
OC3 is about your contribution and its quantified impact on core company metrics along with third-party verification. If you can show this in OC3 above that’s fine otherwise insufficient.
OC4 looks fine. Add citations where applicable. You will still need one more evidence here to meet minimum of two per criteria.
To answer your questions:
your current MC is weak. Invitations are not valid, need to demonstrate participation.
@pahuja - Thank you for the response !! I have been reading this notion page already. But didn’t come across anything called third party validation thats why raised that question. Sorry if it was naive, I could not relate that term.
Third party validation refers to recognition from credible independent individuals, organisations or platforms that support your expertise, achievements, impact or evidence. - They say or show what you said you did.
For instance, if you said you contributed to open source, you should show what you did on GitHub. The platform is validating that you did it and not you just saying it.
GitHub is then the independent third party platform validating your evidence claim
@Manoj_Ravi it’s validation of your self-claims in the application. Third party (outside of your own claims) verifiable evidences that validate the impact, recognition or innovation you have claimed in the application as your contribution an impact.
Examples include any public articles, PR, news, pictures of events you have participated in, letters of association, website mentions, relevant screenshots of public repositories etc.
Based on past applications I’ve reviewed, your main challenge is building external recognition that goes beyond internal company work. Your planned academic paper should definitely be used for MC rather than OC4. Academic contributions under OC4 typically require multiple peer-reviewed publications, and single papers work better as mandatory recognition evidence. The speaking engagement you’re planning to secure needs careful execution - make sure it’s at a major industry event with 100+ attendees on the main stage, and avoid the appearance of “box-ticking” by ensuring genuine industry relevance.
Your WordPress blog won’t qualify for recognition evidence as personal blogs don’t meet third-party validation requirements. Instead, focus on getting published in major tech publications or industry magazines. Your LLM project for OC1 needs to demonstrate clear innovation with measurable impact - consider filing a patent or showing significant user adoption. For OC3, your system integration project must include quantifiable business metrics and external validation beyond company benefits.
With 14 years of experience, you have solid technical foundations. Focus the next 6-12 months on building external industry presence through speaking at recognized conferences, publishing in established tech publications, and documenting the measurable impact of your innovations. Your diverse background is actually an advantage once you frame it properly with strong external validation.
