Please Review Request (Exceptional Promise Canidate)

Stage 1: Tech Nation Endorsement
1

Hi everyone, I would really appreciate some advice on my Global Talent Visa (Exceptional Promise – Digital Technology). This is my first draft and first attempt at the GTV, and I want to make sure I apply with a strong application.

I am a recent graduate from the US with a Master’s in Comp Sci, AI, and ML, very early in my career, with experience in Tech since 2025. My career progression has looked like:

  • Pre-2025 – University student working in hospitality/ customer service: Worked in a combination of hospitality roles as an Operations assistant, communicating with international stakeholders, and facilitating administrative tasks.
  • 2025 – Independent study in Computer Science/Coding: I began taking free coding courses and bootcamps for fun, which led me to pursue my MS.
  • 2025 – AI evaluation work via Mercor: Started working on AI QA and Evaluation work through Mercor for companies like Meta and Microsoft. Realized I really like the work and decided to go for my degree.
  • 2026–Present – Master’s degree in CS and AI/ML: Started an accelerated MS course, which I completed in 6 months, during which I have been working on multiple AI projects outside of school and work.
  • 2026–Present – Founding my own AI startup: One of my projects in particular has gotten a lot of feedback from mentors and peers, and was suggested to me to consider turning into a product, so I have started the process of doing that.

I am currently considering the following MC points and OC points, and this subsequent evidence:

Mandatory Criterion / Recognition

MC1 – Outside of your normal day-to-day job, 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: Evidenced by my AI Policy tracking project and its activity/usage metrics, alongside letters from experts regarding my project.

MC2 – 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: I have published a research article in IEEE Access regarding AI tokenization in healthcare manual verification.

Optional Criterion – Significant Technical Contribution

OC1.1 – Innovation as founder/employee in a new digital field: My Healthcare Agent project, which I am currently turning into a product-led business. Evidenced by activity/usage metrics,
1.2: LLC paperwork and feedback letters from experts in Healthcare technologies.

OC2.1– Recognition for innovation from peers/industry: Results from an international Google hackathon competition with over 8000 competitors, with a Social media post about my project and industry impact
2.2: Letters of industry impact from the judges of the competition.

I also have 3 letters of recommendation from leading experts in AI, Fintech, and IT. Whom I’ve connected with via LinkedIn and have attended online conferences with and have agreed to help.

My questions are:

  1. Does my overall MC + optional-criteria structure look appropriate for Exceptional Promise?
  2. Which pieces appear weakest or incorrectly categorized?
  3. Are there parts of the wording of the requirements that I do not understand or misinterpret?
  4. What type of evidence would strengthen the overall application rather than simply adding volume?
  5. Am I realistically too novice to the Tech industry to apply for the GTV right now?

Thank you for any and all feedback! I really appreciate anyone taking the time to help me understand better.
And please do not feel like you need to be nice/sweet/kind. I am looking for brutal honesty to make sure that I get that visa.

2

You are not automatically too early for Exceptional Promise. The Guide expects many Promise applicants to have under five years in technology, but you still need evidence of emerging recognition and potential. The issue is whether independent evidence shows your work is recognised beyond your immediate network.

For MC1, activity figures and expert letters need context: show your contribution, who benefited, and corroboration such as coverage, adoption, or recognition by relevant organisations. MC2 is a concern as described. An IEEE Access paper you authored is not, by itself, published material about you and your digital technology work. It could help establish technical expertise, but the criterion needs independent coverage that profiles your work and recognition, rather than simply publication of your research.

The Google hackathon result may support OC2, but the award alone does not establish significant voluntary contribution beyond your occupation. Judges’ letters would be more persuasive if they identify what you personally created, distinguish it from the team’s work, and explain the problem addressed and why the result mattered to the field. A contemporaneous project record or judging documentation could corroborate that account. Keep the voluntary, non-commercial nature clear. For OC1, explain the product’s novelty and your own role; paperwork and positive feedback alone do not demonstrate innovation.

A useful next step is to map each proposed item to one criterion and ask whether it independently proves your personal contribution, significance, and recognition. Remove or reframe items that do not meet that test before building the case around them.

3

Brutal honesty: you’re not ready yet. Your timeline is too short, and several pieces are miscategorized.

  • MC1 (open source): Only works if the project is genuinely substantial. High stars, downloads, contributors, real adoption. If metrics are low, it’s weak.

  • MC2: You’ve misunderstood it. An IEEE Access paper you wrote is your research, not media coverage about you. That belongs under OC4, not MC2. MC2 needs articles, interviews, or features about you and your work in a News Outlet such as TechBullion.

  • OC1: LLC paperwork and mentor feedback are weak. You need product traction: users, revenue, adoption, partnerships.

  • OC2: Hackathon participation is fine, but if you didn’t win or place highly, it’s not strong recognition. Letters from LinkedIn contacts are weak unless they know your work deeply and can cite specific impact.

  • Letters: Three recommendation letters from LinkedIn connections won’t cut it. You need senior, independent experts who can verify your contributions with detail.

Too novice? Yes, likely. Exceptional Promise still expects evidence of potential leadership. You have a very short track record.

My advice: Wait 1 to 2 years. Build real traction, get external recognition, publish more, win awards, gain adoption. Then apply. Don’t rush a refusal onto your record.

4

@Hayley.a.may

Trust you’re doing well.

Being in Tech since 2025 is still quite early. That said, you may still have a chance if you can demonstrate a longer professional track record in another field. The key is being able to show clear potential for leadership through your skills, achievements, and overall career progression.

Looking at your journey so far, it appears to be heavily focused on studying. Unfortunately, evidence gained purely as a student is often given limited weight, as it may not be considered strong professional evidence.

Regarding your AI Policy Tracking project, is it an open source project? If so, can you share any usage, adoption, or engagement metrics?

For MC2, the requirement is not a publication written by you. Rather, it should be a publication by a reputable media outlet where you, and the work you have done within the sector, are the focus of the article. A published research paper could potentially be used under OC4 as evidence of academic contribution through research, but you would still need to demonstrate the impact of that research.

For OC1, the focus is on innovation within a digital technology field. What is the innovation behind your project? Simply registering a Limited Company would not, on its own, demonstrate innovation.

For OC2, the emphasis is on recognition for your contributions to the sector. This is about showing that your work, outside your paid employment, has been recognised and has advanced the industry. Innovation sits under OC1, while peer recognition is generally an attribute of MC evidence.

Similarly, serving as a judge in a competition can be relevant to OC2 . However, a letter alone is usually not sufficient. You would also need supporting evidence that demonstrates your involvement and impact.

Overall, I think you have a good starting point. My suggestion would be to take some time to build stronger externally validated evidence and focus on demonstrating substantial impact.

All the best.