I am thankful to this forum for the previous suggestions on the MC evidence. Please review the below summary of the evidence (except CV & personal statement) to apply for the Exceptional Talent in Digital Technology/AI.
LoR-1: A professor-cum-neurosurgeon and also a pioneer in adaptive deep brain stimulation endorsed my research expertise and the academic award received during my PhD
LoR-2: A Principal Engineer specialized in commercial ultrasound devices endorsed my technical contributions and their impact in enabling AI-powered ultrasound applications
LoR-3: The CEO of an AI/5G startup and also my ex-manager in my current org endorsed my significant technical contributions and their impact on the real-time customers’ use cases, customer-facing skills, and voluntary academic collaborations in the last three years Note: All three referees highlighted my potential contributions to the adoption and the development of AI software ecosystem and key initiatives/projects in the UK
MC Evidence:
Technical contributions to the growth of a product-led digital company:
Started with the motivation for adaptive deep brain stimulation, listed out the contributions & key results of my PhD research and their impact on the growth of commercial neuromodulators in a neurotech company.
Included a reference letter from a professor in the UK to endorse the contributions
High salary:
Summarized my contributions that led to the salary increments and added a table listing out the salary increments, performance bonus, stock grants in each year from 2022-2025.
Included the screenshots of my offer letter, pay slip & salary comparison data from Glassdoor
Professional publications & Awards:
Included the latest research publications along with the motivation and their impact.
Listed out the white papers and their impact on the real-time business use cases
Included the awards such as Industrial Advisory Panel Memberships in a public university along with the photos taken in the last meetings and two international awards recognizing my technical contributions in digital tech
Speaking engagements:
Summarized the details of my two virtual keynote sessions and one hands-on workshop including the link to the YouTube video/presentation deck, the source code in GitHub repository, invitation letter and screenshots showing the number of participants during my sessions.
OC Evidence:
OC3 -Technical contributions in my current & previous roles:
Evidence 1 & 2: Included the key contributions (solution diagrams, GitHub repos) and their impact on the customers’ use cases supported by the screenshots of the customer testimonials, photos taken at the international exhibitions, divisional recognitions and the reference letters
Evidence 3: Included the offer letters and annual rewards statements showing the salary increments & stock grants received in the two companies
OC4-Academic Contributions:
Evidence 1: Peer-reviewed journals: Summarized the research publications with the links to the online versions, metrics (number of views/downloads), journal’s impact factor, Google scholar profile showing the overall metrics and the reference letter from my PhD co-advisor.
Evidence 2: Peer-reviewed conference presentations: Included 8 conference presentations with the significance of the conferences, links to the articles and the photos of my oral/poster presentations
Evidence 3: Outstanding Academic Achievements & Awards: Included the motivation towards academic excellence supported by the school topper certificates, CTCI Scholarship Award for outstanding academic excellence in PhD, the photos taken during the PhD viva-voce & award ceremony & PhD/Master’s/Bachelor’s graduation certificates with distinction grade & scores
Thanks a lot everyone who shared their experience on this forum. It was very helpful in preparing my documents.
I skimed through your large set of document. But I think it still needs some work arounds.
OC3:
Quantifiable KPIs are key for your OC3. You spent too much in explaining what you did and what your work were.
Also most of the evidence seem to be self-authored. It is suggested to include some screenshots or letters which shows the actual report of your business imact to support the authencity of your evidence.
Including your OC3 reference letter, is it possible to revise the letter to support any of your numbers?
OC4:
OC4 Dont just list out the publications. You will need to explain it to the TechNation about it to make you qualify for the criterias.
Overall comment, I think you have potential to be qualify as ET. But I think you still have a room to improve. Here are some tips for you.
Put the assessor’s hat on, think like them who never know you and will need to read through the large amount of text, to qualify you as the leading Digital Tech person.
Don’t expect the assessor to click your links.
Perhaps you can highlight more about digital tech than
Include only the strong evidence which you have some documents to support it. It can be LOR, certificates, screenshots from trust sources, and etc.
Hi @alexnk, thanks a lot for taking your time to review my documents and sharing your feedback. I will revise the documents based on your suggestions. One of my LoRs endorse the numbers mentioned in my technical contributions (OC3) to Company1. I will also include the screenshots of the appreciation emails from the account manager to support the metrics. Ignoring my white papers, the other links included are the official customer testimonials (with metrics) published on the company website. I would like to clarify whether the assessment team consider the links as supporting evidences.
For the OC4, I too realized the same for the research publications. I already started revising it with the brief background, motivation, conference photos, media articles, and the value added by the results.
They do not have to click any of the link. You should provide the details in the evidence by yourself. The hyperlinks are suggested be used in some limitted case, for example, providing the authencity of the evidence, video link, and so on.
MC:
in some online conference which you try to prove number of audience, how do you really prove the authencity of the number? Try not to self-authored them. Use the reference letter or any screenshots if possible.
Some of the evidence seem to exceed 1000 word counts. Be careful about this.
Some contain too many unneccessary references, which may confuse the assessor
Overall you have lots of information you can provide, buy be selective and straight to the point to prove each of your criterion. You need to aim for 2 strong evidence in each criterion.
Hi @alexnk, thanks for the feedback on the MC evidence. My challenge is to balance the supporting data vs the page limit per evidence. For example, in the case of MC evidence for the speaking engagements, I have inserted the screenshot of the YouTube page to show the number of participants in one of my training sessions, while I don’t have space to insert the screenshot for the other session. However, your suggestions helped me to understand the expected format from the assessor’s point of view. I will revise the evidences accordingly.
I have revised the technical contributions to Company-1 with the following changes: Shortened the contributions and added the photos & snapshots of the key supporting data from the published references instead of citing them
Please review the revised evidence and this new reference letter that supports one of the claims, while the endorsements for the rest of the claims are inserted in the evidence itself. This could help me verify my understanding so that I could follow this to revise the other evidences.
I just skimmed through some of the docs. Not just assessors, but people on this forum reviewing posts also have limited time. Instead of adding all docs and links in such detail, you could summarize the evidence pieces in a few lines each so that the reviewers will have a bird’s eye view of your application and point out the missing dots to connect. You could check the posts on the forum to get an idea on how people give context to each of their evidence pieces without having to add the docs themselves. Hope this helps.
thanks @Ramesh_Perumal for the overview. It does look like you have everything you need or perhaps even more. But that can also backfire as it can look like too much information but not enough clarity. For instance, I’m not sure how in one 3-page doc you can show the contributions, results from your PhD result and a letter, without cluttering or missing out key details. Remember, they don’t expect you to showcase as many projects or contributions as possible - you have the CV for it.
If you can show the highest impact project with the right level of detail and attribution/recognition to you, that will do for one doc. Hope this helps.
Thank you @gk_shan for your feedback. For my contributions to the commercial product under MC, I started with the motivation for adaptive deep brain stimulation followed by my contributions & key results and the impact of my publications on the development of commercial product in my professor’s company. I included the screenshots of the company website citing my publications. Finally, I included a reference letter in the third page to endorse the claims made in the first two pages. This document was revised with the reference letter according to the suggestions from the previous post. Please feel free to key in your inputs.
