Request for Exceptional Promise Evidence Review - Frontend Developer

Stage 1
1

Hello Everyone, I’m organising the draft documents for my global talent EP application. I’m a Frontend Developer with 4+ years of experience. I would really appreciate some feedback on my evidence set

Background

Experienced frontend developer with 4+ years of exp

Letters of Recommendations

  1. CEO, with 14+ years of engineering experience, and Former Engineering Director at Company B
    -Supports OC3

  2. Research Supervisor,Dr and Professor at UAE. Also an expert in the digital field
    -Supports MC

  3. CEO and Co-Founder at Company A…lots of technical background, and is also an expert in the digital field.
    -Supports MC

Mandatory Criteria (MC) - Led Company Growth + Open source recognition + peer recognition

  1. Led the growth of Company A as a Founding frontend developer:
    -Led the development of frontend applications currently used by millions
    -Company raised funds and was mentioned in large media articles
    -Product I worked on was also mentioned in well known articles
    -Got promoted to Head of Frontend
    -Outside of my assigned role, I represented the company at external Tech workshops, and also build the mobile apps with 10K+ downloads
    -Github commits evidence and pictures of me at external workshop
    -Will be backed by Letter of Recommendation from CEO stating that I did work on the product

  2. Contributed significantly to an open source over the course of a year
    -Over 3.9k stars, 17k weekly downloads, 500+ forks
    -Evidence of approved PR in release notes, and conversations with core team regarding feature implementations
    -Will get letter of support from a member of the core team acknowledging my significant contributions

  3. Published a research paper (relating to my field of expertise) to peer-reviewed ICoDT2 conference on IEEE Xplore

  4. I was selected to be a Judge at First Challenge UK, which is a large national innovation Robotics competition for young adults in STEM (But it is recent)

Optional Criteria 2 - Recognition outside of work

  1. Volunteer Mentor - Consistent community contribution - In Person
    -Structured in person program to help people from disadvantaged background transition into Tech
    -Invitation proof, and pictures of me running sessions, and attending community events
    -Slack pictures thanking me for my contribution for previous courses

  2. Volunteer Mentor/Coding Facilitator - Volunteer - Virtual
    -Also a structured program to mentor young adults into tech
    -Proof of invitation email, thank you email, certificate of completing mentorship program

  3. A current volunteer mentor in another STEM structured program that targets young women in STEM. - Virtual

Optional Criteria 3 - Significant technical and business Impact

  1. Significant technical and business impact at Company B as a mid frontend developer
    -Identified a problem and Led the development of an application that saved the business thousands of dollars in yearly costs
    -Significant contribution in a UI component library that was open sourced after deployment

  2. Significant technical contribution at Company C as a lead frontend developer
    -Identified manual deployment problem when I entered. and led the development of the entire cloud infrastructure on Azure and migrated from a manual server (Outside my job role)
    -Metrics to show uptime percentage since deployment
    -Gitlab commits
    -New deployment time and code coverage proof

  3. Letter of reference from Head of Product from Company C

@Raphael @Akash_Joshi

1 Like
2

Hi @Farbaks

You’re eligible for the Promise route as an experienced frontend developer with 4+ years of experience.

On your LORs: Having a CEO with 14+ years of engineering experience is strong. If “Supports OC3” etc. means each referee is focusing on different criteria, that’s a smart strategy, it helps avoid letters sounding the same. Just make sure all letters follow the Tech Nation LOR guidelines. The letter from the Co Founder is weak and may be seen as biased.

For the Mandatory Criteria: Don’t just describe what you did, show it. Use things like funding acceptance emails, proof of funds disbursed, and external media mentions (non‑advertorial, and ideally naming you or clearly linking your role).

Representing your company at a workshop is not enough on its own, you need to show you were invited as an expert. GitHub commits can work if you clearly show ownership. App downloads rarely mention your name, so they don’t show recognition. Letters can support claims, but they’re weak without validated evidence that rightly meet the criteria.

Open‑source contributions are good, but don’t over‑explain your relationship with the maintainers, let the repo and your commits speak. I strongly discourage reference letters from open source authors. Your IEEE Xplore paper is strong, but you still need a recognition element like citations, impact, or how it’s used, that shows it was valuable to the sector. This may rightly fit OC4 better than MC if you can’t show recognition elements. Judging at First Challenge UK can work, but it’s recent and not exactly peer‑level; it’s better framed under OC2 as contribution to the sector, if it has some mentoring elements.

For OC2: Volunteer mentoring is useful, especially consistent, in‑person, just show that it was substantial. Virtual volunteering is weak, so use it as supporting evidence in the absence of of other evidence.

For OC3: “Significant technical and business impact” and “Significant contribution in a UI component library” currently read like descriptions, not evidence. You need clear, verifiable proof that you actually delivered these outcomes.

You’ve got some solid evidence, like the research paper with IEEE, judging role, mentoring, GitHub contributions. However, you need strategically present them as strong, verifiable evidence. Focus especially on OC3 and improving MC and OC2.

All the best.

3

Hello @Raphael
Thanks a lot for your feedback, I really appreciate it! For the LOR from the co-founder, I may have phrased this wrongly, I meant to describe the person as the founder of the company I worked at as a founding frontend developer. I’m not a co-founder of the company.

Also, for the github commits, I can show ownerships, and external articles from TechCrunch and TechCabal mentioning the funding and describing the product I worked on (as an employee of the company, and not the founder).

For the open source, why do you discourage the letter of support, and would the open source evidence still be good without it?

For the OC2, the virtual one was more of a Coding Facilitator where I taught young people to code. it was also a structured program with a selection criteria. Does this make it better than being a virtual mentorship?

For the OC3, I have verifiable impact outside of my role as a lead frontend developer at Company C, with proof of Github commits, and deployment metrics. Also with a letter of support from the Head of product to speak to this

4

@Farbaks You are welcome. The author of the LOR if not your co-founder and is an expert in the sector, then it should be okay.

For GutHub, if you can show ownership and how it contributed to the sector, in terms of adoption metrics like downloads, then this should work.

Regardless of what the virtual is for OC2, it is weak. For OC3, to sincerely comment, I may need to know what these verifiable impact evidence are, reference letters are meant to support evidence claim. They do nothing on their own.

1 Like
5

@Raphael For the OC3, this was my major impact:
-Identified manual deployment problem when I entered. and led the development of the entire cloud infrastructure on Azure and migrated from a manual server (Outside my job role)
-Metrics to show uptime percentage since initial deployment
-Gitlab commits to show I implemented the deployment process
-New deployment time and code coverage proof

For the open source, why do you discourage the letter of support, and would the open source evidence still be good without it (PS: I don’t own the open source repo but I have significant contributions)?

6

Your contributions and you been listed as a contributor is okay, because GitHub or GitLab as the case may be are reputable open source platforms. A letter from the maintainer or author may suggest you know the person and your contributions were accepted on the basis of relationship and not because it was valuable to the project - which is the recognition element.

If you can ask me to write a letter for you, you can as well ask me to accept your contributions regardless.Right?

In a singe sentence - It invalidates the important recognition element for both MC or OC2 criteria.

1 Like
7

@Raphael Alright, thank’s a lot! I really appreciate it! I also added my specific OC3 impact in my previous response

1 Like
8

@Farbaks In all honesty for the OC3, still sounds like description to me or maybe not convincing enough to show contribution to a product-led company.

9

@Raphael Hmmm, alright, I’ll work on improving the evidence to focus on the impact, as opposed to just describing what I did. Thanks a lot for your response. I really appreciate it!

1 Like