Seeking review - Exception Talent (Product Manager)

Stage 1
1

Hello all, I just started following this forum and I really appreciate the great work! Much appreciate your review of my profile.

CV

  • 12 years of work experience, 8 Years at a FAANG, the last 3 as a Principal Product Manager.
  • I’ve led large scale-launches - consistently with the use of ML and AI in the Video Shopping Experiences and cloud computing space
    Letter 1- Head of product and engineering at current company, my manager
    Letter 2 - Principal Scientist at current company
    Letter 3 - VP at another FAANG, who worked with me previously

MC

    1. Reference letter from Product Director of Tiktok recognizing my leadership in AI-driven video innovation
    1. Media Coverage (including Washington post) highlighting the impact of the products I led. These articles don’t have my name, but I have an 3) internal promotion doc authored by my manager that calls me out as the product manager for them.
    1. Industry recognition - 1) invited to judge Women in Tech globee, 2) invited to speak at product school, 3) mentor for MBA women at Forte Foundation
    1. Publication - Co-author of one publication in a top sciences journal, which was also accepted in CAV (International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification)
    1. Salary slip showing that I’m at the 85% percentile band, in levels.fyi

OC1 - significant contribution

    1. Letter from my FAANG’s Vice President detailing my impact, specifically my 3-year and 1-year proposals that received funding and additional head count.
    1. Business impact -

  • Internal Dashboards showing I had a +$96MM annualized incremental impact to the FAANG’s revenue due to a feature X

  • Internal wiki and launch announcement showing that I launched the above feature X,

  • A reference letter from engineering head to speak to above

  1. Screenshots of redacted product proposals that were pitched and received funding internally. To show that I received funding, I can show internal headcount allocation to projects.

OC2

  • 2 approved patents (with google scholar links available)
  • Evidence of productionalization of one of the patents, showing that the innovation is currently live and being used by 4500+ customers world wide. industry impact.

Based on the above

  1. Should I proceed with Exceptional talent or promise?
  2. I’ve launched several features, some with higher impact, some with lower - should I add them in and create more breadth? or just focus on more depth on the highest impact feature?
  3. Would you suggest including additional evidence?
2

@Francisca_Chiedu @pahuja - much appreciate your review of my profile! Thank you in advance :slight_smile:

1 Like
3

Hi @nandita_mathews

You have a strong profile with your product roles at top tier tech companies. But it’s important you pack your last 5 years of key experience in a strong tightly knit application.

Firstly, applying for talent or promise route is dependent on number of years of experience. If you have more than 5 years experience, you can apply and be assessed for talent and not promise.

MC1: can this letter extend your contribution to include any industry recognition or connection to how your work has impacted the industry? Since MC is about being recognized as a leader in the industry, only internal work contributions don’t suffice.

MC2: Will the letter also specifically say that your contribution led to the products being featured on Washington post? Please don’t leave it on the assessors to make the connection, they won’t. If the posts don’t mention your name it’s key for the letter to create that bridge clearly and specifically attribute the success to your contribution.

MC3: were you only invited or did you also participate? Please include participation pics, #attendees, any media mentions. Was the mentorship part of a structured program with selection of mentees?

MC4: please include engagement stats of the journal.

MC5: please include a Glassdoor benchmarking of salary to prove high salary per industry standards.

You are misnunbering the Ocs. What you have mentioned in OC1 falls under OC3 and what’s mentioned under OC2 falls under OC1.

OC3.1 & 3: increase in head count and internal funding is not a core company metric impact. Please translate it into metrics like revenue, expansion and scaled sales. Plus you need to show your significant contribution to these projects being scaled and not just “pitching”. Please include product architectures and user flows.

OC1 is good especially with patents and productizations! Hope these patents are approved patents with your name in authorship.

I would recommend first creating your full evidence set with the above and then reviewing to see where you can add more weight. Then add briefs of other high impact features where you can evidence with quantified metric impact on company, your significant contributions and third party validation.

Hope this helps!

1 Like
4

@nandita_mathews

You have an impressive trajectory, working with the big five (FAANG), who are all product-led companies.

Head of Product and Engineering and others are good recommenders. However, make sure the letters follow the recommendation letter requirements.

MC

I believe the listing is not in respect to importance, but don’t put a reference letter first. A reference letter is not considered evidence on its own; it is meant to reference evidence.

The Washington Post not mentioning your name dilutes the strength of that evidence. Also, an internal promotion document authored by your manager may not be considered as international or national recognition. However, you can get a reference letter from your manager referencing your expertise, which places you at the forefront of ML and AI in the Video Shopping Experiences and cloud computing space.

Your role as a judge for Women in Tech Globee is a good one. What evidence do you have to show here? I

f you have an invitation letter, video and pictures of the event with you and other reputable individuals, and maybe an appreciation email, then this can stand alone as evidence.

Invited to speak at Product School and mentor for MBA women at the Forte Foundation - these are good, but I think they are not too suitable for MC. Speaking at Product School - was it at a top-tier, high-profile digital technology sector event or a specialist event? Were you a keynote speaker? Your speaking engagement should meet these criteria to be strong MC evidence. However, this can possibly fit OC2 if strategically presented.

Your publication as a co-author is fine, but include the title, date, and evidence that you are indeed a co-author. Do you have the acceptance email from CAV? Your salary is okay too.

Overall, I think you should have a good MC set if presented convincingly and strategically.

OC1

The letter from your FAANG Vice President should focus on the impact of your innovation. Showing evidence of the funds received will make this more convincing.

Internal dashboards showing you had a +$96MM impact - how do you intend to show that all of this is due to your track record of innovation? Internal wikis and launch announcements showing that you launched feature X are good, but they should clearly show and briefly state that you led the innovation of the product that was launched. Showing internal headcount allocation to projects is good, but it should also be mentioned in the reference letter, since it’s internal evidence without external validation.

OC2

Two approved patents (with Google Scholar links available) are not suitable for OC2 but should work for OC1. Also, evidence of productionalization showing your innovation is more suitable for OC1. So, I think you need to work on your OC2.

On your questions:

Should I proceed with Exceptional Talent or Promise?

Exceptional Talent - because of your years of experience and your evidence set. If presented strategically, and if you strengthen your OC2, there are strong chances.

I’ve launched several features, some with higher impact, some with lower - should I add them to create more breadth, or just focus on more depth for the highest-impact feature?

Yes! Include as much as your 3 pages can accommodate per evidence. These evidences are complementary.

Would you suggest including additional evidence?

Yes! Include evidence that rightly fit each criterio, if they can be accommodated - but do so strategically. For instance, you don’t want to start your evidence listing with a reference letter or low-impact evidence.

All the best.

1 Like
5

This is so helpful! Thank you so much.

Got it, will apply under exceptional talent.

MC1- can the letter extend to include industry recognition - yes!

MC2 - great call out, will make a note of it.

MC3 - only invited unfortunately, and the mentoring being structured - how can I check for that? I was selected as I was part of the forte foundation, received a scholarship from them in the past and went to an MBA school that they support - Carnegie Mellon. But I doubt they say all of this explicitly on their website…

MC4 - will do! I have citation counts I can add.

MC5 - Glassdoor it is.

Oops on the misnumbering! I can add architecture and design diagrams.

OC1 - yup, patents are under my name and approved by the US patent office within the last five years.

1 Like
6

Only invitations without participation don’t count and will in turn weaken your application. Wouldn’t recommend including these at all. A structured mentorship program is one that runs in a cohort with a structured program running over weeks where the participants (mentees) are selected basis a criteria and hence is not open to all/ from the sound of it the one you are mentioning may not be structured and hence won’t count.

Focus on your Washington post features by creating a strong link with your reference letter, your patents, co-authored journal, and market productization of one of the patents/ play these to your strength.

And then add additional strong features.

2 Likes
7

Your profile is strong with FAANG experience and leadership at the Principal PM level. However, there are critical gaps that need immediate attention before you apply.

Your MC evidence needs restructuring. The Washington Post coverage without your name is a major weakness unless your reference letter explicitly bridges that gap by stating “the product featured in Washington Post was led by [your name].” Internal promotion documents don’t count as third-party validation. Move your judging role to the front and only include speaking/mentoring if you actually participated with proof of attendance and audience size. I’ve seen applications rejected recently for listing invitations without participation evidence.

Your OC evidence is misnumbered and needs serious strengthening. Patents belong in OC1, not OC2. Your $96MM revenue impact needs to show YOUR individual contribution, not team results. Assessors now specifically reject applications that don’t separate individual from team impact. Your reference letter must explicitly state “the $96MM increase resulted from [your specific innovation]” with architecture diagrams showing your technical contribution. Headcount allocation and internal dashboards alone won’t pass without third-party validation.

Focus on depth over breadth. Pick your strongest feature with clear individual attribution and build comprehensive evidence around it. Include product architecture diagrams, simplified technical flows, and reference letters that explicitly connect your work to measurable outcomes. Apply under Exceptional Talent given your experience, but strengthen your individual impact narrative first.

1 Like