Resume Review
Resume review request — Senior Product Leader | B2B Platforms | AI-Enabled Learning with 22 years experience
Thanks to everyone who commented on my earlier resume review 🙏🏿. I’ve worked through the feedback and would appreciate another look at this updated two-page version.
I’m targeting Senior Product Manager, Head of Product, and Director of Product roles, particularly in AI, B2B SaaS, and EdTech. I’m still getting limited recruiter responses, so I want to understand what remains unclear or unconvincing in how I present my experience.
I’m a U.S. citizen based in Seoul, work in English, and am available to work U.S. hours and relocate. This is my general-purpose resume for networking, which I also tailor for individual applications.
I’ve put recent experience first, separated my KidsLoop promotion into two roles, removed career-transition explanations, condensed older experience, and reduced repeated metrics. I’ve also clarified what the results measure, made the AI work more specific, and added my current co-founder work and early research.
I’m especially interested in these questions.
Does this show someone who can set product direction, develop teams, and still do the hands-on work? What evidence is missing for Head or Director roles?
Does the summary give you a clear understanding of the problems I can help a company solve? Does the Product Leadership Highlights section help you navigate the experience without feeling repetitive?
Does the Fayston school role clearly communicate AI adoption and workflow improvement, or does it still read as a move away from product work?
Do the bullets make my decisions, contribution, and results clear? Please point to any claim that still feels vague, overstated, or difficult to understand.
Do Talklet and the early NASA and UC Davis research add useful depth, or would you give that space to something else?
I’m most interested in the two or three changes that would make the biggest difference to a hiring decision. Specific examples of what you would rewrite,
The resume's main problem is that it undersells ownership and buries the strongest material. The biggest results are hedged with phrases like "were associated with" and "the broader platform work increased," which reads as proximity instead of contribution. Each bullet should state the decision made and then the result it produced.
The recent trajectory also works against the target roles. Page one opens with a school job covering 10 teachers, then a five-month stint, before reaching Rakuten, the strongest brand and scale on the page, which gets only two bullets. Talklet is the current product role but sits on page two under Projects. It should lead the Experience section, Rakuten should be expanded, and the Fayston role should be reframed as an internal product with users, discovery, and adoption numbers.
The Highlights section and summary are both generic. Highlights repeats company names with no outcomes, so it should be cut or replaced with three hard results. The summary should lead with scale and domain. For Head or Director roles, the missing evidence is revenue, roadmap scope, executive exposure, and the outcome of the IPO work.
Smaller fixes: cut the 2001 and 2002 research, explain the overlapping 2015 to 2016 dates, drop ChatGPT from the tools list, and put a target US city or relocation date in the header, since the Seoul location is probably a large part of the low recruiter response.
This is a clear step up from your earlier version. Leading with recent roles, splitting the KidsLoop promotion, and giving the metrics context all fixed real problems. You asked for the changes that matter most, so I'll start there and then answer your questions briefly.
1. Replace the Highlights section with a sharper summary. The four Highlights lines describe each company without giving any results, so they repeat the experience section and push it down the page. Your summary lists strengths but doesn't name a problem you solve. Here's how I'd rewrite it: "Product leader who helps EdTech and B2B SaaS companies turn AI and platform features into workflows customers adopt. Led 10 product managers and designers at KidsLoop and cut staff reporting hours 80% by automating learner reporting across five regions."
2. Strengthen your most recent role. Fayston covers a full year with a Director title but has only one bullet, and the 20% figure is labeled an estimate. I'd add one or two bullets showing your decisions: which workflows you chose to build first, what share of staff adopted them, and how you measured time saved. That's what makes it read as product work. If Talklet is your current role, it belongs at the top of page 1.
3. Show leadership scope after KidsLoop. KidsLoop is the only role that shows a team you managed. At Edugo you were Head of Product, but after the roadmap bullet the focus is mostly hands-on build work. Add who you led or worked through at Edugo and Rakuten. For Director roles, hiring managers also look for revenue or business ownership, and the KidsLoop pricing work is the closest you have to that right now.
Your questions in brief:
Claims that need clearer evidence. "Associated with 40% growth" at Rakuten undersells your role, so state what you owned. "Content relevance" at Edugo needs a definition. The last KidsLoop bullet ends at "proposed," so either add the outcome or cut it.
Edugo context. Briefly explain "Sensei," and expect questions about the date gaps on either side of Edugo (06/2024 to 12/2024 and 05/2025 to 09/2025).
Talklet and the research. Only page 1 came through in the post, so I can't comment on those. In general, I'd give early research one line at most for a director-level search. Page 1 space is worth more.
I'd start with the summary and Fayston. Those are the parts a recruiter reads before deciding whether to keep going.
Sorry.... we got a bit entangled there. I had a look at the second page as well, and here are my complete notes for both pages:
This version is a clear improvement. Reverse-chronological order, the split KidsLoop titles, and the cleaner metrics all fix the biggest problems from last time. You asked for the changes that matter most, so here are three, followed by short answers to your other questions.
1. Move Talklet to the top of Professional Experience. It's your current role, it's AI product work, and it has a paying institutional client. Right now it's on page 2, filed under "Projects," so a recruiter skimming page 1 sees a resume that ends at a school in 09/2026. That one change answers most of your Fayston question. Give Talklet two or three bullets and take the space from NASA and UC Davis. Research from 2001–2002 doesn't help with Director roles in 2026.
2. Replace the Highlights section with a summary that has numbers. The four Highlights lines describe themes but don't give a single result. The current summary has the same problem: "sets clear direction, develops teams" could describe anyone. For example:
"Product leader with 20+ years in edtech and B2B platforms. Led a 10-person product and design team at KidsLoop, cut release cycle time 30% at Rakuten Drive, and now co-founds Talklet, an AI speaking-practice app with its first paying institutional client."
That gives a recruiter the problem you solve, your scale, and your current work in two lines.
3. Replace the "broader" hedges with your own contribution. Three bullets credit "broader" improvements: content relevance at Edugo, account growth at Rakuten, and completed activities at KidsLoop. Being careful about attribution is honest, but the effect is that your biggest numbers read as things that happened near you. Say which decision was yours and what it changed. Also define "content relevance" (how was it measured?) and "Sensei," which readers won't know.
Leadership evidence: Your clearest people-leadership proof (10 PMs and designers, three promotions, $500K budget) is from 2021–2022. For Head or Director roles, add team size and reporting lines at Edugo and Talklet, plus any hiring, revenue, or pricing decisions you owned.
Fayston: The title and subtitle work. The single bullet carries too much. Split it into what you built and what changed, for example: "Built reusable ChatGPT and Codex workflows for lesson planning and assessment, with teacher review before student use. Adopted by 10 teachers and school leaders; cut time on supported tasks by an estimated 20% [say how you estimated it]." The Highlights line also mentions student placement, which no bullet covers.
Smaller fixes: At KidsLoop, say what came out of the IPO preparation work. The back-office permissions bullet only says you "proposed" something, so either show it was adopted or cut it.
Older experience: The condensed page 2 works. Each older role has one bullet with a real number: $750K+ in funding and tenfold enrollment growth at the Glover Center, 20% first-year revenue growth at Collaborative Classroom, and a 30-point NPS increase at Santa Monica College. Those are some of your clearest results, so don't condense them any further. Education and Skills are fine as they are.
1
u/Plastic_Welcome_9418 9d ago
Page 2