Please Review Request (Exceptional Talent)

Stage 1
1

Hello everyone,

I would appreciate it if you could review my application for the Exceptional Talent route. I have over 7 years of Software Engineering experience, and I would be grateful for any feedback from this community.

Mandatory Criterion (MC)

1. International Speaking

Since 2019, I have spoken at more than 12 events across different countries. With the exception of the COVID-19 period, when I presented virtually, I have spoken on the main stage at least once every year since 2019.

Of these events:

  • I was personally invited to speak at three events.
  • One invitation was as a keynote panelist.
  • Another was for a session organised by a reputable UK university in partnership with the British Council.
  • One event organiser has repeatedly invited me to speak and, over the years since 2019, selected me for more than 10 of their events.
  • This organiser also featured my photo and profile on their homepage as one of their experts alongside founders, Google engineers, and other recognised professionals.

Because I could not include every event, I focused my evidence on this single organiser. The rest I added to my CV. My evidence includes:

  • A reference letter explaining why I was repeatedly selected, their speaker selection process, and the attendance figures.
  • A screenshot showing my profile on their list of experts.
  • A screenshot of my feature on their homepage.
  • A YouTube video of one of my talks on their youtube channel with over 3,000 views.
  • One of the invitation emails.
  • My speaker profile on their website.

At the end of the evidence, I included links to my profiles for other events I have spoken at, including the event organised by the reputable UK university in partnership with the British Council.

2. Fintech Product (Team Lead)

I included evidence of my contribution as the Team Lead for a fintech product.

My evidence includes:

  • A reference letter from the founder explaining how they knew me, my responsibilities, and the impact of my work.
  • GitHub screenshots showing my code contributions.
  • A TechCrunch article announcing the company’s pre-seed funding (my name wasn’t mentioned).
  • An article showing the number of businesses onboarded and invoices generated.

None of the media articles mention my name directly.

3. Media Features

I was invited by two media organisations for interviews after they discovered my work:

  • One was a reputable television and newspaper media company.
  • The other was a radio/podcast station.

I was also featured alongside other technology experts on another online news platform.

4. Open Source

I created two open-source projects.

Project 1

  • Over 3,000 downloads
  • More than 100 GitHub stars
  • Contributions from approximately 8 external developers
  • Around 5 GitHub issues raised by community members
  • Featured on a curated directory website

Project 2

  • Over 7,000 downloads
  • Demo video with more than 2,000 YouTube views
  • Contributions from several external developers

Optional Criterion 2 (OC2)

1. Mentorship

From 2020 to 2022, I served as a mentor in a Google Developer Program.

  • Year 1: Mentor
  • Year 2: Mentor and invited to serve as a Final Stage Judge
  • Year 3: Invited to become a Team Supervisor

Each role was by invitation via email, except mentorship where I was selected.

My evidence includes:

  • Invitation emails.
  • A reference letter from the organisers explaining why I was selected, the number of participants I mentored, judged, and supervised, and my overall contribution.

I also mentioned in my CV that I was selected as a mentor for another Google Developer Program at a university, although I did not add separate evidence for this.

2. Stack Overflow

  • Stack Overflow profile with over 1,000 reputation
  • More than 630,000 people reached

3. GitHub Contributions

My GitHub profile demonstrates contributions to several well-known open-source projects, including projects maintained by Microsoft, Meta, and Joi, along with comments and reactions from other developers.

Optional Criterion 4 (OC4)

1. CTO - E-commerce Product

Evidence submitted:

  • Media feature about the product on Techpoint Africa, including photos of the CEO, CFO, myself, and the team (my name is not mentioned, but my photo appears).
  • GitHub commits showing my contributions to a key feature.
  • Media publication showing significant business growth that was enabled by the feature I implemented.
  • Additional GitHub contribution and another media article highlighting further growth.

The CEO has already provided a recommendation letter, so I referenced that letter for additional details about my impact rather than duplicating the same information.

2. Technical Co-founder (Product 1)

Evidence submitted:

  • Recommendation letter from my co-founder describing my responsibilities and impact.
  • GitHub pull requests showing my contributions.
  • Screenshot of a partner company’s website displaying our company logo.
  • Stripe and Paystack dashboard screenshots showing over 900 transactions.
  • Reference letter from one of our client’s CEOs explaining how the product increased their revenue and referencing several features that I implemented, supported by the GitHub pull requests.

3. Technical Co-founder (Product 2)

Evidence submitted:

  • GitHub contributions showing my work.
  • Screenshot from the product website showing a feature I built, with over 1,000 registered users.
  • Microsoft Clarity analytics showing more than 5,000 visits.
  • Reference letter from a client explaining how the product improved their processes, reduced operational expenses, and highlighting several features I developed that are evidenced by my GitHub contributions.

Letters of Recommendation

  • LOR 1: CEO / Founder
  • LOR 2: CEO / Founder
  • LOR 3: Senior Software Engineer

I would really appreciate any feedback on whether this evidence appears strong enough for the Exceptional Talent route, and whether there are any obvious gaps or areas that could be strengthened before submission.

@Ralph_Abboud @Akash_Joshi @Francisca_Chiedu @Raphael @pahuja

2

Your MC2 fintech and OC4 CTO pieces both carry the same external-validation gap: none of the media articles name you, so the reference letter is doing all the heavy lifting. That’s the self-declared pattern assessors flag when they can’t distinguish your contribution from the rest of the team. GitHub commits alongside a client-side letter with concrete before/after numbers usually carries more weight than press coverage that never mentions you.

MC1 concentrates most of its weight on a single organiser. That reads as repeated engagement with one partner rather than international recognition across the field. Your British Council/university event and the keynote panelist invitation are stronger anchors and should sit in the main evidence with their own confirmation emails or letters, rather than only linked from the CV.

OC4 with three separate pieces (CTO plus two co-founder roles) risks stretching the criterion thin. One strong piece with externally verified revenue and retention numbers will beat three thinner ones. Pick the cleanest client letter and traction, keep the others in CV context.

If you want a deeper review, reach out to one of the advisers here.

1 Like
3

Hi @Jennifer

Speaking at several events can be okay, but to be honest, not all speaking engagements qualify for MC. They need to be top‑tier events, sector‑relevant, and focused. You should be invited as a keynote speaker or domain expert, and you should be on the main stage speaking to at least 100 people on a sector focused topic. It should be as a result of recognition, or you should be recognised for your expertise. So you need to select the speaking engagements that meet these criteria to increase the chances of them being accepted.

A reference letter explaining why you were selected is not sufficient. A screenshot showing your profile on their list of experts can support your case. YouTube talks with 3k views can be okay, depending on what you spoke about. Invitation emails depend on its context. Some of these can support your evidence, but make sure they genuinely meet what is expected for top tier speaking evidence.

For Fintech Product Leader evidence, MC is not focused on contribution but about how you led, company direction, a team, or product development. Reference letters are not sufficient, so avoid using them as your first evidence. They should come last, only to validate what you have already listed. GitHub showing your contribution can be okay, but remember this is not about contribution, it is about how you led others to deliver it. Can you show version control responsibilities, correspondence with developers where you provided direction, approvals to upload or download features, upgrades, or improvements? Any validation without your name will not support your claim. Being invited by media outlets shows recognition, but what were you recognised for? In your context, it must be something you did that advanced and impacted the sector, and you were invited to speak about it. Open‑source projects you created with 3k and 7k downloads respectively can support your MC.

Serving as a mentor in the Google Developer Programme can be okay, but what was the selection criteria? Were you approached, or did you register online? If so, what was the selection process? Can you show more details on what you mentored and how many people you mentored? Your StackOverflow profile, with 1k reputation and 630k people impacted, can support your OC2, along with your GitHub contributions.

OC4 is about your contribution to the sector through research. Perhaps you intended to list those under OC3, which covers technical or commercial contributions in a product‑led company as an employee or maybe founder in your context.

For your LORs, the individual’s title alone is not sufficient to show they are established experts, especially in this startup era where even a college student can be a founder/CEO. A Senior Software Engineer can work, but I suggest reviewing their public profiles to ensure they are established experts in the sector.

All the best.

2 Likes
4

@Akash_Joshi thanks for the feedback.

Regarding MC1 , it’s the same organiser but different technical events. My understanding was that “sustained recognition” for Exceptional Talent means demonstrating a consistent track record of recognition and impact over time. I thought that being repeatedly invited and selected by the same organiser for multiple events over several years would help demonstrate that, that’s why I focused on that organiser.

The British Council/UK university event was just last month. For the keynote panel invitation, the event hasn’t taken place yet, but I have the email invitation, and my speaker profile is published on their website alongside the other invited speakers. (As a side note, one of the UK mayors is also speaking at the event.)

Since the keynote hasn’t happened yet, would that be considered evidence that was “created specifically for the application” , or is it simply viewed as being too early to carry much weight?

Also, sorry, I meant OC3, not OC4. You already understood what I meant, though, so thanks anyway!

5

Thanks for the feedback @Raphael, really appreciate the details.

For the speaking: The ones that meet the requirements like the British Council/UK university event was just last month. For the keynote panel invitation, the event hasn’t taken place yet, but I have the email invitation, and my speaker profile is published on their website alongside the other invited speakers, including one of the UK mayors who is also speaking at the event. Since the keynote hasn’t happened yet, would that be considered evidence that was “created specifically for the application” , or is it simply viewed as being too early to carry much weight?

I need to submit this month.

Yes OC3 not OC4, that’s a mistake. Each of the LORs are established award winning CEOs, the senior engineer linkedIn show the high-end organisations he has worked for over the years.

6

@Jennifer

Why do you think British Council/UK university event is a top tier technology event that meet the requirement? For the keynote panel invitation and any event that has not taken place, it’s not yet a viable evidence. Email invitation can show that you were approached but won’t demonstrate what you did and how it impacted or advanced the sector. If the UK mayors are not established technical or business experts if won’t matter for Tech Nation.

On your OC3, you don’t need a recommendation letter to validate an evidence, what you use is a reference letter which you already listed. Also, using two letters in one criterion is not strategic. GitHub contributions showing your work can be okay as supporting evidence, but you need to clearly show ownership, screenshot from the product website showing a feature, Microsoft clarity analytics won’t show that you built it, these can support the adoption impact of what you did but you need to clearly show your technical contributions. Stripe and Paystack dashboard screenshots showing over 900 transactions can be okay to show external validation for earnings but a letter from an executive need to clearly state that the earnings are as a result of your contributions.

All the best.

7

Hi @Jennifer

That looks like a good set of public evidences! Some caveats on double clicking though:

MC1:

  • the events you demonstrate should be top digital tech events in themselves
  • You mention invitations many times: ensure you show the ones you participated in not just invited to as invitations by themselves don’t hold any value only participation does.
  • Showing a variety of events versus a single organizer is a better strategy to show diversity.
  • events added in CV won’t be counted towards criteria evidences and TN doesn’t open external links hence providing links will act against. Instead focus on pulling out 2-3 strong events with large audience, international nature, photos of main stage and letters and include those.

MC2: while this is a good demonstration of your work the media proofs need to link to you to qualify for industry recognition of your work. Please ensure the letter carries this link and attributes the number of business earned and funding to your work. Without this you cannot use this as a credit to your work. Infact if your other MC evidences are strong I would suggest removing this evidence.

MC3: pl include the scale of these channels with viewership details, pictures of the interview along with engagement if they were posted online. Letters from here would also help to validate industry recognition.

MC4 is good till you show clear attribution to yourself.

Another thing to note is if all these above evidences are within the last year then they will not be considered as a track record but as close to application date and could be flagged. Please show spread out evidences across years.

OC2.1: pl ensure the program had selection criteria for mentees and not an open mentorship. Include pictures of mentoring sessions offline, number of mentees, and more importantly the impact of this mentorship. The letter should also include the impact.

OC4: this criteria is about showing academic research contribution to the sector. What you have presented is a better fit for OC3 which is to do with showing quantified impact of your work. Since this criteria is mainly to demonstrate quantified impact of your work on core company metrics, just showing what you did isn’t enough but what that work impacted is crucial. Please ensure this is incorporated in all evidences. Weak metrics get disqualified as a low number hence please select evidence and metrics where you can show significant impact. Atleast your last evidence shows not high metrics hence I would recommend leaving it out.

Hope this helps! Feel free to reach out if you need more detailed review. Good luck!

1 Like
8

Your evidence covers the chosen criteria, but there are a few areas I would suggest strengthening before submission.

For the Mandatory Criterion, your international speaking engagements are a strong piece of evidence, especially if you can demonstrate the credibility of the events, speaker selection process, and audience reach. Your open-source contributions also add weight. For the fintech product, ensure the focus is on your personal recognition and leadership, as media coverage about the company alone carries less weight if it doesn’t identify your role.

Your OC2 evidence seems appropriate. Mentorship, judging, Stack Overflow, and open-source contributions beyond your employment align well with the criterion. Make sure the emphasis is on your impact on the wider technology community.

For OC3/OC4, your product-led evidence is relevant, but rely on measurable outcomes and independent validation rather than GitHub commits alone. Client testimonials, business metrics, user adoption, and commercial impact will make these documents stronger.

The main area to review is ensuring each evidence document demonstrates your individual contribution, not just the success of the company or product. Overall, the structure looks competitive for Exceptional Talent if the evidence is supported by strong independent validation and avoids duplication across criteria.

1 Like
9

Thanks for the feedback @Raphael.

The event has deputy head from other universities, senior lecturers, professors, all in tech related fields and from different countries. And it is only invitation-based. There are no submission, one has to be invited to speak. Although, it’s not written as that on the website, but there are no section to submit papers too. It has partnership with organisations and universities in other countries as well. Do you think that counts as top-tier? Or what counts as top-tier?

And I am also part of the technical committee of the program handling the event. I was also invited to be part of the committee. My name and photo along with other senior lecturers and professors are in the website. Maybe is should go with this for MC, instead of the event.

10

Thanks @Akash_Joshi @Raphael @pahuja @Noddy for your feedback.

Based on your comments, and because I don’t have sufficiently strong independent validation for some of my evidence, I think I’ll apply under Exceptional Promise rather than Exceptional Talent.

These are my updated pieces of evidence. I’d really appreciate your thoughts.

MC1 – Technical Program Committee

I was invited by the Deputy Head of a UK university in June 2026 to join a Technical Program Committee in partnership with the university and the British Council. My responsibilities include facilitating sessions, reviewing technical topics, mentoring participants, and speaking. Other committee members include deputy heads, professors, and senior lecturers from different universities.

My profile (including my name and photo) is listed on the programme website. Since joining, I have reviewed multiple session topics, help to manage the website (it’s a wordpress, so no code) and contributed to an active week-long workshop that is currently happening. I also have Teams screenshots of my conversations with the Deputy Head and can obtain a reference letter describing my role and contributions. The program since launching in May 2026, it has over 3000 total registrations and climbing, I can get a screenshot to confirm this. The speaking session, I had with the program in July 2026 has reached over 5000 views and 200 likes on youtube.

MC2 – Speaking

I’m planning to submit evidence from 2–3 technical conferences (2023, 2024, and 2026) organised by different organisations where I was invited to speak (none were keynote talks).

For each event, I plan to include:

  • the invitation email;
  • the 2023 conference programme showing my name alongside other speakers (link);
  • one photo of me speaking;
  • my speaker profile on the organiser’s website (link);
  • a feature among the experts on their homepage(link);
  • one reference letter from the organiser confirming attendance numbers; and
  • a thank-you email from an attendee explaining how my talk helped with their project and requesting the remaining slides.

Would the attendee email be considered evidence of impact?

MC3 – Media

I’m planning to rely on two independent media interviews.

The first is with a radio network that has interviewed several New York Times bestselling authors and recognised technology entrepreneurs.

The second is with an award-winning media organisation that has operated for over 25 years, with journalists who have received multiple international awards.

Both organisations invited me to participate (one in Febuary 2026 and the other in April 2026), so I’ll include the invitation emails, the interview links, what was discussed, and the impact.

For the radio interview, I can’t obtain listener figures. However, on searching, I find: https://muckrack.com/ platform says there are estimates between 100–1,000 monthly listeners, and https://www.listennotes.com/ says the radio is the top 5% of over 3.7 million podcasts. For the media organisation, I can only see the TV interview views (3k views).

OC2-1 – Open Source

I’m considering moving my open-source evidence from MC to OC2 to strengthen OC2, replacing my GitHub contributions.

I’ll focus on:

  • my technical contributions;
  • 3,000 and 7,000 downloads;
  • external pull requests;
  • GitHub issues raised by other developers;
  • the demo video; and
  • community adoption.

Since 100 GitHub stars looks relatively modest, do you think I should remove that metric altogether?

OC2-2 – Mentorship

I’ll start with a Google Developer Group (GDG) programme (happened in 2025).

I was interviewed, selected, and accepted as a mentor. There is a recording of one of my mentorship sessions on YouTube, and one of my mentees later wrote a Medium article mentioning me and also emailed to thank me after securing a job.

I’m also including another Google Developer programme where I was selected as a mentor.

For this one, I’m thinking of focusing only on my 2022 mentorship rather than mentioning that I was later invited to become a judge and team supervisor, because my earlier mentoring began in 2020, which falls outside the five-year window.

I’ll include:

  • about the reputation of the organiser
  • the mentor acceptance email;
  • a thank-you email from the organiser;
  • a photo with my mentees; and
  • a reference letter confirming the number of people I mentored.

Aside from the youtube, there are no external verifiable link except links that the program existed on their social media. But no mentors were mentioned.

Do you think that’s the better approach?

OC2-3 – Stack Overflow

I’ll include my Stack Overflow profile showing over 630k reach, more than 1,000 reputation, together with my GitHub contributions to Microsoft, Meta and Joi.

My only concern is that Stack Overflow shows I’ve been a member for 7 years.

OC3-1 – Technical Co-founder (Product 1)

I’ll include:

  • a two-year cumulative payment growth chart (Paystack and Stripe);
  • a Paystack dashboard screenshot;
  • a database screenshot showing total users;
  • GitHub commits demonstrating my implementation of Paystack, Stripe and the core algorithm;
  • an architecture diagram of the algorithm;
  • a technical blog post on the product website explaining the algorithm with my name attached;
  • two customer companies using the product (with links);
  • an independent media article discussing my role and mentions the product;
  • a customer reference letter; and
  • the Companies House incorporation certificate showing me as a director of the holding company.

One question: the product operates under a different brand name but is owned by the registered holding company (registered as limited in company house). Although, the product website states that it is operated by the registered company. Would that raise any concerns?

OC3-2

From your feedback, I’m less confident about this evidence.

The commercial impact and metrics are independently verifiable, but no place my name is linked to the work, except through a media feature on Tech Crunch that includes my photo with the team.

Do you think that’s likely to be considered too weak?

11

The decision of assessment towards a route lies with TN irrespective of which route you apply to. If you have overall >5 yrs work ex they will assess you for Talent even if you apply for Promise.

1 Like
12

@Jennifer No matter which pathway you apply through, all evidence is assessed against the same standard, specifically, whether it genuinely meets each criterion. External validation is required in every case.

The only real difference is the level of substantiality, how long you’ve been doing the work and the scale of what you’ve achieved. For instance, if a Talent applicant is expected to show around a 5k‑level impact, a Promise applicant might show around a 2.5k‑level impact. The distinction isn’t about quality, but simply that Promise applicants typically have fewer years of experience, so their impact may naturally be smaller.

All the best.

1 Like
13

Your revised structure looks more suitable for the Exceptional Promise route, but I’d still focus on strengthening independent validation rather than adding more evidence. One thing I would like to suggest for your OC3-2 - if your contribution cannot be independently linked to the product beyond internal letters and a team photo, it may be the weaker document. If possible, replace it with evidence where your personal impact is more clearly attributable. Overall, your revised structure appears more coherent than your previous version. Before submitting, I would recommend reviewing each evidence document to ensure it has a distinct purpose, minimizes overlap across the criteria, and is supported by the strongest independent third-party validation available. Wishing you the very best with your application.

1 Like
14

Can I use only 1 OC3, that has third-party validation? The other 2 are all internal. How risky will that be?

15

@Jennifer No, at least you need 2 unique evidence sets in each criterion.I believe, while Tech Nation will not refuse to assess your application. Having just one evidence as against their requirements is not strategic.

1 Like
16

I second @Raphael. While one strong evidence set may be assessed, I would not recommend relying on only one. It’s safer to strengthen the additional evidence with independent validation where possible.

1 Like
17

Thanks for all your feedback, I really appreciate it. For OC3, what counts as a third-party validation of impact?

Does these count:

  • Stripe payment analytics/Paystack Dashboard showing the revenue for the period of contribution
  • Database dashboard showing number of users, e.g a MongoDB compass
  • Github PR showing my implementation and date
  • Claude Console or any AI console showing the input and output tokens for a certain month or any of the AI platforms
  • Letter from CEO or managing director and of-course their Linkedin page

Since none are public URL, do they really count?

18

What counts as external validation really depends on the nature of your contribution and the evidence you’re putting forward. From my experience, Tech Nation doesn’t enforce a single type, and based on recent feedback, the examples in the guidance shouldn’t be treated as a strict checklist. The real goal for OC3 is to demonstrate independent, verifiable proof that your work created measurable impact in the sector through a product‑led company.

Your listed evidence can work, as long as you can clearly show that each item is a direct result of your contribution.

All the best.

19

@Raphael thank you for this feedback

20

I have for one of my OC3 an employment I got in around April 2025 as a key engineer, and assisted in launching their first product in Sept 2025. But my biggest contribution to the product, was launched in Jan 2026, and it was a big users, went from a struggling tiny customer acquisition base to almost a thousand at the end of Q2, and from 0 to many paying users, (not so much revenue as the pricing plan and currency is weak). And it’s still growing into the Q3.

My question is, will this contribution count as “too early-stage to demonstrate significant contribution”?