Top of the day to you @Raphael@Akash_Joshi, I have a few questions about one of my evidence pieces in MC.
I have two separate award documents:
Document 1: Contains evidence of an award received (full evidence, trophy, certificate, etc.).
Document 2: Contains evidence of another award, plus a recognition that came only as an email from the awarding body , no trophy, no certificate, and it doesnât appear on their winnersâ page. That said, the email itself is substantive: it recognises all my achievements in the tech industry and my contributions to the field. For this recognition, Iâve also added a screenshot of them congratulating me on LinkedIn.
My question is: in Document 2, by including this email-only recognition (plus the LinkedIn screenshot) below the fully-evidenced award, would it dilute the strength of the overall evidence?
So should I remove the email-only recognition that has no trophy, certificate, or winnersâ-page listing, or should I leave it in as supporting evidence?
Thank you both, @Raphael and @Akash_Joshi, for your continued support, I really appreciate it.
Well, an award is simply a recognition element, and from the feedback Iâve seen over time, itâs not treated as evidence on its own. The award shows that you were recognised or awarded for doing something, but you still need to demonstrate those things first with solid evidence, then use the award to validate.
Except for worldâclass awards whose reputation and selection standards are widely understood by experts, like the Nobel Prize or the Order of Merit, most awards (for example, a âBest Product Manager of the Yearâ type award) require you to show the underlying work and then use the award as supporting validation.
So an email, a list of achievements, a trophy, or a certificate alone wonât demonstrate why you received the award.
Thank you, @Raphael for your ever impactful responses, this clarifies it well, and Iâve structured my evidence exactly along the lines you described.
My document is ordered this way:
First, the product-led growth itself, focused on the products that drove the growth, demonstrated with solid metrics and detail.
Then reference letters that independently back up the claims about that product-led growth.
Then the award, sitting last as validation of the work already demonstrated above.
So the award isnât carrying the evidence on its own, the work and the references come first, and the award validates them.
My one remaining question is about a secondary recognition within the award section. The primary award is fully evidenced with a certificate, trophy, signed letter, and verifiable winnersâ page. The secondary one has only an official notification email plus a screenshot of their public LinkedIn congratulatory message, no certificate, trophy, or winnersâ page.
Given that the underlying work is already demonstrated and backed by reference letters, does that email-and-LinkedIn-only recognition still add value as extra validation, or is it better dropped so it doesnât dilute the stronger evidence above it?
To be honest, an email and a LinkedIn mention alone wonât convincingly show that you were formally awarded. Including that kind of evidence may even make your first award appear less significant. If it were me, I would prioritise using the award that is properly validated.
That said, it also depends on the awarding body. For instance, a simple email confirming a national award from your country, along with an official LinkedIn announcement, can carry far more weight than a âBest Product Managerâ type of award from an unrecognised or a non reputable organisation.
Iâd remove the email-only recognition. Youâve got 3 pages and youâre spending some of that on an email screenshot and a LinkedIn post for something without a verifiable winnersâ page. Use that space to expand the metrics or add another angle from your reference letters.
Including a weaker recognition can make assessors wonder why you needed it at all. If the primary award is strong, let it stand alone.
, I have a few questions about one of my evidence pieces in MC.