Offer Brief · offer evaluatorCareer IntelligenceFiled · Sep 14, 2026 · Confidential

Subject company

NVIDIA Corporation

Senior Silicon Design Engineer · IC5 · Santa Clara, CA

Take the offer seriously; negotiate from strength on equity and scope. Your $235,000 base sits at the 89th percentile of the California base-cash market band (median $183,227, n=87), so the productive negotiation surface is the equity grant, not the base.

NVIDIA Corporation: Strong trajectory — Rule of 40 score 130.9, revenue growth 105.9% year-over-year, analyst consensus price target $322.50 against a current price of $211.755.

Base

$235K

Equity grant

$320K

Vest

4 yr · cliff 1

Offer vesting schedule

Market band · DOL H-1B / LCA

Web and Digital Interface Designers · Level III · California

This offer’s base sits at the 89th percentile — near the top of the market band.

Role-specific match

P25

$159K$159,432

Median

$183K$183,227

P75

$211K$210,810

P90

$238K$237,762

Your base: $235,000 · $24,190 above the P75 mark — this band is a floor under you, not a ceiling

Source: DOL OFLC LCA disclosure data · n=87 certified filings · base cash only (excludes equity and bonus). Use as a citable market floor, not total compensation.

The return on this brief

$13K / yr recurring

$19K one-time

The negotiation room this brief is built to unlock — typically many multiples of its price. The lever-by-lever play is in the negotiation playbook below.

Strong

company trajectory · low confidence

One number that matters

$1.3M

5-year expected total comp (probability-weighted NPV)

bear

$1.03M

base

$1.22M

bull

$1.62M

What moves this number

Nominal (undiscounted) 5-year total under the base scenario: $1,595,000
Discount rate applied to every year: 10%
Annual target bonus: NOT PROVIDED at intake — every year below is base (plus signing and vesting equity) alone. No bonus was assumed.
Vesting over 4 years with 1-year cliff
Bear equity multiple: 0.4x
Base equity multiple: 1.5x
Bull equity multiple: 3.8x
Exit probabilities: bear 20%, base 50%, bull 30%

01 · Executive decision

What to do next

Start here. This section compresses the brief into the decision, the strongest reasons behind it, and the risks that deserve verification before you sign.

Why the verdict landed here

Base $235,000 sits at the 89th percentile of the base-cash market band (median $183,227).
Company operating quality is strong (Rule of 40: 130.9).
Base sits at the 89th percentile of the certified base-cash band for California (n=87).
Growth-and-margin composite of 131 (105.9% revenue growth plus 25.0% FCF margin) — an adapted screen: the 40 threshold is a SaaS convention this company is read against, not a bar it was set.

What to verify before signing

Sustained insider selling pattern detected.

Signals we only see when the data is connected

The Vera Rubin production ramp that justifies your negotiating leverage on equity is the same program whose delay or cancellation would directly threaten your role — making grant size and vesting structure more consequential than the base conversation

high

Negotiation leverage + Risks · medium confidence · 2 source facts in the appendix

The 44% customer concentration risk sits underneath a five-year forecast that assumes continued hypergrowth, but a single hyperscaler pullback would compress the equity scenario spread from a $431K bull-bear gap to something far narrower — meaning the RSU grant you negotiate today is priced off a revenue base that has a known single-point-of-failure

high

Risks + Career upside + Offer economics · medium confidence · 3 source facts in the appendix

The sustained open-market sell pattern among insiders — 19 open-market sale rows in the trailing 90 days — weakens your leverage on an equity refresh conversation, because management's revealed preference is to reduce exposure at current prices, which is the same price band your RSU grant will be struck against

medium

Leadership and stability + Negotiation leverage · high confidence · 2 source facts in the appendix

Revenue per employee of $7.2M growing 57% year-over-year signals exceptional productivity absorption, but headcount grew from 36,000 to 42,000 in the same window — a 16.7% increase against 105.9% revenue growth — meaning the organizational diagnosis supports a strong equity ask now, before the company normalizes headcount growth to revenue growth and tightens grant budgets

medium

Offer economics + Company quality · high confidence · 3 source facts in the appendix

Unlock 3 more signals only Footnote connects

Live SEC filings, peer comp, scripts, provenance, and canonical synthesis — built for your company and offer.

Get the Offer Brief — $49 Compare both brief tiers

Score components

Org health · 36%95

Leadership · 21%87

no SEC graph — neutral prior

Strategy · 21%85

Alumni · 0%55

not weighted in this composite — no evidence to score it

Promotion · 0%55

not weighted in this composite — no evidence to score it

Skills · 14%55

no skills signal — neutral prior

Red flags · 7%30

Bar color: strong (65+) · moderate (45–64) · weak (<45)

Higher is healthier on every bar — including Red flags, where a high score means few were raised

55% of the design weighting is not evidence-backed — 30% was renormalized out of the composite entirely and 25% is still weighted but scored on a neutral prior. The percentages above are the weights this score was actually computed with.

Purchase your report to unlock full details

Live SEC filings, peer comp, scripts, provenance, and canonical synthesis — built for your company and offer.

Get the Offer Brief — $49 Compare both brief tiers

The decision rule

Accept-leaning

Derived from this brief’s own numbers — the band placement, company operating quality, and role exposure — not model judgment. The same rule fixes the verdict above.

Accept when

Comp is already placed above market — protect it; negotiate scope, level, or refresh terms instead of base.
The equity-weighted package (base plus equity plus signing) stays ≥ 1.5× the base-cash median (currently 3.4×).

Negotiate when

Equity is the swing factor — confirm the refresh policy and vest mechanics before relying on the headline number.

Walk away when

Verification surfaces a dealbreaker (the verification questions in the negotiation playbook) — scope, level, or team stability materially worse than represented.

Where people from here go next

Alumni outcomes require optional user-contributed career data and confidence thresholds.

02 · Offer economics

What the offer is really worth

This translates the package into realized value, equity risk, market benchmarks, and concrete negotiation room.

Headline package

$615K

base plus equity plus signing

After cliff year 1

$535K

Equity scenario spread

124.5%

Negotiation room

Base 8% / equity 15%

Market consensus

A compact read on whether public-market expectations support the equity story behind the offer.

Median target

$323

DCF fair value

$229

Revenue est. · FY2027

$409B

Total comp at three valuations

Your $235,000 base sits at the 89th percentile of the DOL H-1B/LCA California band (median $183,227, n=87), so the base is already well-defended — the more productive negotiation surface is the $320,000 RSU grant, where the bear/base/bull equity scenario spread of $346,684–$778,258 (at the analyst consensus price target of $322.50 in the base case) gives you a concrete range to anchor an ask for a larger initial grant or an accelerated refresh conversation. NVIDIA's revenue per employee of $7,213,548 — up 57.2% year-over-year against a 6-peer semiconductor median YoY growth of 37.8% (6 qualifying peers) — signals that each incremental hire is being absorbed into an exceptionally productive revenue base, which strengthens the case that the company has room to compete on equity without moving base; ask specifically about refresh cadence, vesting structure, and whether a performance-based equity component exists at IC5, as none of those terms were part of the offer collected here. Equity scenarios use rsu linear and show 124.5% spread across available public valuation anchors.

Evidence confidence: high

Highest leverage asks

Base sits at the 89th percentile — push equity: Your $235,000 base already clears the California market median of $183,227 by a wide margin and lands at the 89th percentile of the DOL H-1B/LCA band (n=87). That placement means base is largely optimized; the more productive ask is a larger initial RSU grant. The $320,000 equity grant is the component with the most room to move, and at a company generating $7,213,548 in trailing-twelve-month revenue per employee, there is a clear business case for paying top-of-house in equity to retain engineers who ship datacenter silicon.

Evidence confidence: medium

Vera Rubin ramp creates urgent silicon design demand: On the most recent earnings call, NVIDIA stated that Vera Rubin 'commenced production shipments earlier this month' and is 'expected to mark the fastest product ramp in NVIDIA's history,' with purchase orders already in hand from every major hyperscaler. A Staff-level accelerator design engineer with RTL-through-tapeout experience on three shipped GPU/accelerator programs is exactly the profile needed to sustain that ramp — and that scarcity has a price. Ask directly whether the grant can be sized to reflect the criticality of the silicon design function to the Vera Rubin and next-generation roadmap.

Evidence confidence: medium

Equity upside is real but so is the volatility — negotiate grant size now: The analyst consensus median price target is $322.5 per share against a current price of $211.755, implying meaningful upside; the base-case equity scenario on your $320,000 grant projects to $487,356 at that target. However, annualized volatility is 38.2% and the stock carries a current drawdown of -10.2%, so the grant dollar value at award is the number you can actually negotiate — future price is not. Pressing for a higher grant value now is the only lever you control; ask whether the grant can be increased to $400,000–$450,000 to reflect both your seniority and the stock's inherent price risk.

Evidence confidence: medium

Executive compensation context

NVIDIA's FY2026 DEF 14A shows CEO Jen-Hsun Huang at $36.3M total (salary $1.50M, stock awards $24.8M, incentive plan $6.0M); the four other named executives ranged from $14.3M to $14.8M, with stock awards comprising roughly 85–87% of each NEO's total package — a structure that weights long-duration equity heavily over cash, consistent with how the company retains technical talent at senior levels.

From proxy-statement compensation records.

Insider exercise pattern

In the trailing 90 days, 2 distinct insiders executed 7 open-market sell trades totaling approximately 3,785,740 shares (~$839M) with zero open-market buy trades recorded; the signal is classified as sustained selling at high confidence. This is one 90-day window and cannot be compared to or cross-checked against any other period in this brief.

Pattern read derived from Form 4 filing data.

Comp waterfall

What it shows

Headline package versus the modeled value after the first vesting cliff.

Why it matters

It separates advertised compensation from what is actually exposed to vesting timing.

How to use it

Anchor negotiation around the gap between headline value and first-year realized value.

Equity scenarios

bear

$347K

base

$487K

bull

$778K

Cliff risk: leave before the first vesting cliff and realized equity is $0 — the bear case is not the floor. Weigh signing cash accordingly.

What it shows

Bear, base, and bull public-market anchors for the equity grant.

Why it matters

RSU value is not fixed. A strong offer can still carry material downside if the stock resets.

How to use it

Ask for equity refresh protection, a higher grant, or signing cash if downside exposure is high.

External comp benchmarks

Directional public-market anchors — not company-specific exec comp or your offer.

DOL H-1B / LCA · state + level

California · n=87 · offer at 89th pctRole-specific match

P10: $136,000
P25: $159,432
Median: $183,227
P75: $210,810
P90: $237,762

Base cash only (year) — excludes equity and bonus.

BLS OEWS floor — Web and Digital Interface Designers, California (state OEWS) (2025): median $136,110. Government survey median; a conservative floor, not the role-and-metro market the band above reflects.

Peer tickers are selected from public market data and filings — use as directional context, not a compensation survey.

Not available for this run: next earnings date. Every stream we checked — rendered, held, or absent — is itemized in the appendix coverage matrix.

Sponsorship posture · federal petition outcomes

Growing — new sponsored-hire approvals rose in the latest complete fiscal year. Denial rate across the window: 0.7%. Still actively attesting: 436 certified LCA filings in FY2026 — the freshest read on sponsorship intent, ahead of the slower petition record.

FY2020: 188 new · 585 renewalsFY2021: 254 new · 761 renewalsFY2022: 284 new · 848 renewalsFY2023 (prelim.): 16 new · 378 renewals

Petition approvals from the federal record — counts of approvals, not people; one person can hold multiple petitions across years. LCA filings are attestations, not hires. A fiscal year marked “prelim.” is still being published by USCIS and is left out of the trend. Read the trend, not the absolute size.

Benefits · DOL Form 5500 · FY2024

This employer sponsors a 401(k) plan in the federal benefit-plan record. Headcount and the match below read from its retirement plan on file — NVIDIA CORPORATION 401(K) PLAN.

Active plan participants: 17,275Employer contributions (the match): $176MEmployer 401(k) contributions per participant: $10K/yrParticipant deferrals: $429MBenefit plans filed: 2

Audited DOL Form 5500 filings for FY2024, which lag the calendar by roughly one to two years. Counts are PLAN PARTICIPANTS — covered employees plus separated staff still holding a balance — not a headcount, and are read from the single representative retirement plan, never summed across a sponsor’s plans. Employer contributions are the plan’s Schedule H line 2a (the match); a blank contribution line means it was not disclosed at this grain, not that it was zero. The absence of a line is never the absence of the benefit. Per-participant is employer 401(k) contributions divided by active participants for the latest filed year — a plan-wide average, not your match. What lands in your account depends on the plan formula, your own deferral rate and your salary; ask for the contribution schedule.

03 · Company quality

Whether the company can support the promise

This is the company-health read behind the offer: growth quality, operating discipline, market risk, and whether the financial base supports the compensation ask.

Rule of 40

130.9

Revenue growth

105.9%

Gross margin

75%

Revenue / employee

$7.21M

Trailing twelve months ÷ latest reported headcount.

Revenue mix

Data Center

89.7%

Gaming

7.4%

Professional Visualization

1.5%

Latest reported segmentation, FY2026 · USD.

Where geographic revenue comes from

UNITED STATES

69.3%

TAIWAN, PROVINCE OF CHINA

19.6%

CHINA

9.1%

Latest reported segmentation, FY2026 · USD.

Financial score read

Quality label

Healthy

Altman Z

39.6

Piotroski

Scores are treated as a screening signal only; they support, not replace, the operating metrics above.

Recent events that change the read

Stock News · Sep 14, 2026

Nvidia stock: Should investors buy the dip amid AI slowdown fears?

Stock News · Sep 14, 2026

Nvidia Triggers Key Signals As AI Warnings Mount; Is Nvidia A Sell Now?

Stock News · Sep 14, 2026

CBRS Expands AI Inference Reach: Can It Challenge NVDA & GOOGL?

Source feeds are filtered to a short materiality read; the brief avoids raw news-feed dumps.

Strategic coherence

85/100

Strong

This connects transcript strategy, operating metrics, and offer timing. A coherent company story strengthens equity confidence; drift or mixed messaging shifts emphasis toward cash certainty and explicit role scope.

Growth quality

NVIDIA's revenue grew 105.9% year-over-year (measured July 2025 to July 2026), with Q2 FY2027 coming in at $96.2B and Q3 FY2027 guided to $108B (±2%) — a trajectory that places this among the fastest absolute-dollar revenue ramps in semiconductor history. The composite of that growth rate and a 25% FCF margin produces a growth-plus-margin score of 130.9, a figure that reflects exceptional capital efficiency for a hardware-intensive business, though the 40-point SaaS threshold it references was never designed for this business model. No WARN notices have been filed against NVIDIA in the past 24 months, headcount has grown from 36,000 to 42,000 per the most recent 10-K filings, and the only insider activity this brief carries — 7 open-market sell trades by 2 distinct sellers totaling approximately 3.79 million shares (~$839M) in the trailing 90 days — reflects the scale of personal wealth concentration at current prices rather than any signal about business trajectory.

Evidence confidence: medium

Rule of 40

Rule of 40 score 131 — revenue growth 105.9% plus FCF margin 25.0%.

Evidence confidence: high

Stock volatility and drawdown

Annualized volatility 38.2%; max 12-month drawdown -20.2%; current drawdown -10.2%.

Evidence confidence: high

Strategic coherence

Strategic coherence: 85/100 (Strong). The strategic narrative shows a consistent focus on AI infrastructure and partnerships, with a clear trajectory of growth and investment. However, some risks related to supply constraints and geopolitical factors are recurring themes that could impact future performance.

Evidence confidence: high

Consistent themes across quarters: AI Infrastructure Growth, Partnerships and Collaborations, Supply Chain Constraints.

Evidence confidence: high

Themes that vanished without resolution: Generative AI Transition, Agentic AI Development.

Evidence confidence: medium

Disappeared themes may indicate strategic pivot or de-prioritization.

Newly appeared themes: Sovereign AI Business Expansion, Unique Capabilities, AI Factory Platform.

Evidence confidence: medium

Strong growth potential in AI and infrastructure sectors, with ongoing investment in partnerships and technology development.

Evidence confidence: high

Influence & federal exposure (LDA/SOPR · USAspending)

Reported lobbying spend of $12.87M across 35 LDA/SOPR filings (24 months). Primary issue codes: TRD (35), CPI (31), DEF (17), ENG (9), LBR (9).

In their own words

Verbatim from the latest earnings call — management’s stated risks and investment priorities, unedited.

“However, as I mentioned earlier, we expect to grow approximately 70% as we are supply constrained.”

Stated risk · Supply Constraints

“Given ongoing geopolitical uncertainty, there is no China data center compute revenue in our forward outlook.”

Stated risk · Geopolitical Uncertainty

“We are experiencing extreme pricing conditions in memory.”

Stated risk · Memory Pricing Conditions

“We've invested nearly $50 billion in the Frontier AI labs.”

Investment priority · AI Infrastructure

Rule of 40

130.9Rule of 40 · adapted screen

Healthy · ≥ 40

040 line160

Revenue growth

+105.9%

FCF margin

+25.0%

Growth plus margin clears the 40 line — the company is growing with discipline, not buying growth with weak margins. That strengthens the case for equity.

Adapted screen: the growth-plus-margin composite reads across sectors, but the 40 threshold was set for software. Read the two components and the trend, not the pass/fail.

What it shows

Revenue growth and free-cash-flow margin combined into an operating-quality score.

Why it matters

It gives a quick read on whether growth is disciplined or being bought with weak margins.

How to use it

Use a strong score as support for a stronger equity or refresh ask.

Cash runway

Profitable or cash-generating — runway gauge not applicable

What it shows

How many quarters of cash coverage the company appears to have.

Why it matters

Cash stress changes negotiation posture and role risk.

How to use it

If runway is thin, prefer cash/signing certainty over back-loaded equity.

Revenue per employee

TTM$7214K

What it shows

Trailing-twelve-month revenue divided by the latest reported headcount.

Why it matters

High productivity supports premium compensation; weak productivity can foreshadow cost pressure.

How to use it

Use strong productivity as support for a strategic-hire compensation argument.

Analyst targets versus price

What it shows

Current price against low, median, and high analyst target anchors.

Why it matters

It frames whether the market already prices in most of the upside.

How to use it

Use wide dispersion as a reason to derisk vesting or ask for more shares.

Market cap trend

What it shows

Recent company valuation trend from public market data.

Why it matters

It contextualizes equity timing and whether the offer arrives after a run-up or reset.

How to use it

Pair this with stock-risk metrics before accepting equity-heavy compensation.

04 · Role and career risk

What could make this role better or worse than it looks

This section turns leadership, insider, board, and market signals into career-risk context for the role you are considering — and carries the forward scenarios: the base case and the three forks this offer can take.

Is your role exposed

Confidence: low

low exposure

0 = insulated · 100 = high · a separate read from company health

Your role looks well-insulated on the public signals available.

▼ lowers

Revenue trend (segment proxy)

Company revenue is up 118.4% first-to-last across 6 available quarters (Q1 FY2026 → Q2 FY2027), a 15-month span, not a year-over-year rate, which lowers role exposure at the company level.

▲ raises

Leadership churn

3 executive departures in the last 12 months. · source

Litigation posture (public court records)

Public court records, aggregated at the employer level. Individual parties are not shown; the docket links go to the primary source.

named as defendant in 22 trade secret / IP cases (most recent 2026-07-17).

Dockets: case 1 · case 2 · case 3 · case 4 · case 5

Wage-enforcement posture (U.S. DOL Wage & Hour)

Concluded U.S. DOL Wage & Hour cases, matched to this employer by name and aggregated. A clean record here is not a guarantee; a case filed under a differently-spelled entity may not be captured.

1 concluded U.S. DOL Wage & Hour case on record (most recent findings 2024-04-29).

Workplace-safety posture (U.S. OSHA)

U.S. OSHA inspection and citation history, matched to this employer by establishment name and aggregated. Most relevant for on-site, warehouse, or operational roles; a clean or empty record is common for office employers and is not a guarantee.

1 U.S. OSHA inspection on record across 1 state (most recent 2005-03-01).

Public records checked this run

Litigation (public court records)
On file — see detail above
Wage enforcement (U.S. DOL WHD)
On file — see detail above
Workplace safety (U.S. OSHA)
On file — see detail above
DOL debarment
None in the record

Limitations

No Item 2.05 restructuring 8-Ks matched this employer in the lookback window.
No WARN notices matched (coverage is strongest in CA and NY).
No public ATS board is mapped for this employer, so hiring velocity is unavailable.
Public court-records lookup degraded this run — litigation posture may be incomplete.
Segment-level revenue is rarely disclosed; the revenue signal uses the company total as a proxy.

Stock volatility

38.2%

Current drawdown

-10.2%

Insider pattern

Sustained Selling

Directors on record

C-suite tenure dashboard

Leadership graph (resolved): Nicholas Parker — Executive Vice President, Worldwide Field Operations (appointed 2026-08-24); Suzanne Nora Johnson — member of the Board and member of the Audit Committee (appointed 2026-07-13); Donald F. Robertson Jr. — Vice President & Chief Accounting Officer (appointed 2026-05-04); Scott C. Gawel — Chief Accounting Officer (appointed 2026-05-04); Ellen Ochoa — member of the Board (appointed 2024-11-07); Timothy S. Teter — Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary (since 2018); Colette M. Kress — Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (since 2013); Ajay K. Puri — Executive Vice President of Worldwide Field Operations (since 2009); Debora Shoquist — Executive Vice President of Operations (since 2009); Jen-Hsun Huang — President and Chief Executive Officer (since 1993); William J. Dally — Chief Scientist & Senior Vice President of Research; Chris A. Malachowsky — Co-Founder

Evidence confidence: medium

8-K transition scan is stale; absence of transitions should not be interpreted as stability.

Insider trading intelligence

Of 100 Form 4 rows pulled for this issuer, 27 moved shares out in the trailing 90 days (open-market sales, tax withholding on vests, and gifts), of which 19 were open-market sale rows and 0 were open-market purchases. The 19 open-market sale rows are per-price fills of 7 sale trades by 2 distinct sellers — 3,785,740 shares ≈ $839.02M in total — a Form 4 reports one sale as multiple execution-price rows, so the trade count is the count of decisions. 4 filings carry a per-trade classification — a count of FILINGS over a different window, not a subset of the row counts above.

Evidence confidence: high

Puri Ajay K: other (neutral).

Evidence confidence: medium

STEVENS MARK A: sustained_pattern_sell (negative).

Evidence confidence: medium

COXE TENCH: gift (negative).

Evidence confidence: medium

Parker Nicholas P.: option_exercise_hold (neutral).

Evidence confidence: medium

8-K event log

Nicholas Parker hire: Executive Vice President, Worldwide Field Operations

Evidence confidence: medium

If you regret this in 18 months

The most likely way this goes wrong is that the 44% revenue concentration in three direct customers — disclosed in NVIDIA's Q2 FY2027 10-Q — proves to be the fault line. If one or two of those hyperscaler customers meaningfully reduces GPU purchase commitments (whether due to a genuine AI demand plateau, internal chip development reaching production scale, or export-control escalation), NVIDIA's revenue trajectory breaks sharply downward from the $96B–$108B quarterly run rate. At that point, the Vera Rubin ramp that justified urgent silicon design headcount becomes a liability rather than an asset: the fastest product ramp in NVIDIA's history also means the fastest potential inventory and engineering overcapacity build, and IC5 silicon design engineers hired into that ramp are among the first roles rationalized when tape-out schedules compress — leaving you holding a $320,000 RSU grant that has repriced significantly below the $211.755 grant-date price before a meaningful portion has vested.

Evidence confidence: medium

Early warning signals

Watch NVIDIA's quarterly revenue from its top-three direct customers: if any single customer's disclosed contribution drops more than 10 percentage points from the ~44% combined H1 FY2027 baseline in the next two 10-Q filings, that is a concrete signal the revenue concentration risk is materializing and headcount pressure in silicon design will follow.

Evidence confidence: medium

Dealbreaker check

Has NVIDIA disclosed in any 10-Q or 8-K filed after your offer date that any single direct customer now accounts for more than 20% of quarterly revenue on its own, indicating further concentration beyond the already-disclosed 44% three-customer figure? — Signal: A yes answer means the revenue base is even more fragile than the Q2 FY2027 10-Q implied, and a single customer decision could trigger a revenue cliff that directly threatens silicon design headcount.

Evidence confidence: medium

Base case

Your $235,000 base sits at the 89th percentile of the California base-cash market band (median $183,227, n=87), giving you a negotiating position well above the market anchor before equity or signing enter the picture. The headline package of $615,000 — base plus equity plus signing — is 3.4× that base-cash median, and NVIDIA's composite growth-plus-FCF-margin score of 130.9 (measured over the 12 months from 2025-07-27 to 2026-07-26 plus FCF margin for the period ending 2026-07-26) signals the financial engine behind that equity is running at a level that dwarfs the 6-peer semiconductor median of 37.8% revenue growth. With 105.9% revenue growth over the same window, Vera Rubin already in production shipment, and analyst consensus targeting $322.50 per share against a current price of $211.755, the RSU upside in bear, base, and bull scenarios of $346,684, $487,356, and $778,258 respectively makes equity refresh cadence and vesting structure the right negotiation focus — not whether to take the offer.

Evidence confidence: medium

Reference class

No public reference class beyond market-data peers and SEC leadership transitions.

Evidence confidence: low — read the specifics as directional, not verified

Three forks

The three ways this role can go from here — the downside path, the base case, and the upside. Each fork carries a signal of its own direction or says plainly that none was extracted; a fork never borrows the nearest available sentence.

Bear

No downside-direction signal was extracted for this brief.

Base

No base-direction signal was extracted for this brief.

Bull

No upside-direction signal was extracted for this brief.

Leadership tape

Source-backed leadership facts are used conservatively; unresolved or sparse records are omitted from user-facing claims.

Nicholas Parker
2026-08-24
hire: role → Executive Vice President, Worldwide Field Operations
“appointed Nicholas Parker, age 55, as Executive Vice President, Worldwide Field Operations”
Suzanne Nora Johnson
2026-07-13
hire: role → member of the Board and member of the Audit Committee
“appointed Suzanne Nora Johnson as a member of the Board and as a member of the Audit Committee”
Donald Robertson
2026-05-04
retirement: VP and Chief Accounting Officer → VP, Finance
“intention to retire from his role as VP and CAO”
Scott Gawel
2026-05-04
hire: role → VP and CAO
“appointed Scott Gawel, age 55, as VP and CAO”

Coverage note

Leadership

Ready

Board

Ready

8-K scan

Stale

8-K transition scan is stale; absence of transitions should not be interpreted as stability.

C-suite tenure

Dated appointments from SEC filings — earliest first. Officers without a filed start date are not shown, a start we could only date to a YEAR is shown as that year, and a seat length is computed only where the filing states when the role began. Rows marked “appointed” carry a transition-filing date, which dates the filing rather than the tenure. Where the filing does not say what its date is a date of, the officer is omitted rather than shown under a verb the record does not support.

Jen-Hsun Huang

President and Chief Executive Officer

since 1993 · 33y

Ajay K. Puri

Executive Vice President of Worldwide Field Operations

since 2009 · 17y

Debora Shoquist

Executive Vice President of Operations

since 2009 · 17y

Colette M. Kress

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

since 2013 · 13y

Timothy S. Teter

Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary

since 2018 · 8y

Ellen Ochoa

member of the Board

appointed 2024-11-07

Donald F. Robertson Jr.

Vice President & Chief Accounting Officer

appointed 2026-05-04

Scott C. Gawel

Chief Accounting Officer

appointed 2026-05-04

Insider intensity

What it shows

Form 4 buy/sell activity summarized by month.

Why it matters

Heavy selling does not automatically mean distress, but it changes how much equity risk you should accept.

How to use it

Use sustained selling as support for vest protection or more cash.

Institutional ownership

13F institutional ownership66.6%

6,287 institutional holders (latest 13F)

What it shows

How much of the float sits with institutions, and across how many holders.

Why it matters

Ownership mix can amplify volatility and market sensitivity.

How to use it

Treat concentrated ownership as another reason to stress-test equity-heavy offers.

Not available for this run: board interlocks and largest-holder position sizes. Every stream we checked — rendered, held, or absent — is itemized in the appendix coverage matrix.

05 · Employer durability

Employer durability versus peers

How this company's financial health reads against its public peers — every company scored on the identical rubric, from its own filings. This is a durability comparison, not a list of jobs you could take instead.

Financial health, one rubric

Every company below is scored by the same rule — Rule of 40, revenue growth, cash runway — from its own filings. No cross-company guessing.

NVDA

ADI

Rule of 40 basis: revenue growth over the 12.0 months from 2025-08-02 to 2026-08-01 plus FCF margin for the period ending 2026-08-01.

AVGO

Rule of 40 basis: revenue growth over the 12.0 months from 2025-08-03 to 2026-08-02 plus FCF margin for the period ending 2026-08-02.

ENTG

Rule of 40 basis: revenue growth over the 12.0 months from 2025-06-28 to 2026-06-27 plus FCF margin for the period ending 2026-06-27.

IMOS

Rule of 40 basis: revenue growth over the 12.0 months from 2025-06-30 to 2026-06-30 plus FCF margin for the period ending 2026-06-30.

Peer universe: 9 vendor-listed candidates examined · 6 qualifying Semiconductors peers · the first 4 shown below, in the vendor's order · every median on this panel is computed over all 6 qualifying peers, not only the 4 displayed.

Peer companies

Financial health on one rubric: NVDA scores 95; peers — ADI 95, AVGO 95, IMOS 75, ENTG 59; peer median 94.5 across all 6 scored peers, of which 4 are listed here.

Evidence confidence: medium

Financial-health axis only — leadership, career, and role factors are not honestly comparable across companies from public filings alone.

Promotion and tenure reference class

No user-contributed tenure aggregate has passed k-anonymity for this company yet.

Evidence confidence: low — read the specifics as directional, not verified

06 · Negotiation playbook

How to use the brief in the conversation

This is the action layer: the asks to prioritize, the scripts to use, the questions to ask, and the dealbreakers to monitor.

How to negotiate this

Your base at $235,000 is already well above the California market anchor — pushing it further is not where this negotiation lives. The productive opening is a single, clean equity ask: you want the RSU grant moved from $320,000 to $370,000, and you have a clear, specific reason for every dollar of that gap. Lead with genuine enthusiasm for the role and the Vera Rubin ramp, state the equity number plainly, and let the business case do the work. The recurring annual uplift if this lands is $12,500 — real money, compounding across four vesting years, negotiated in one conversation.

What you're asking for

$13K / yr

One-time bridge (signing)

$19K

Your counter, lever by lever

Base salary

non-cash lever

Hold. Your $235,000 base sits at the 89th percentile of the California DOL H-1B/LCA market band (median $183,227, n=87). Pressing base from this position spends negotiating capital on a lever that is already optimized — redirect every ask toward the equity grant and the signing increment. There is no base increase in this counter.

hold — base is already placed above the market anchor; press scope, level and equity refresh instead

Equity grant

$320K → $370K (floor $320K)

The $320,000 RSU grant is the only component with meaningful room to move. Your target is $370,000 — a $50,000 increase on the initial grant — with $320,000 as your floor. The business case is straightforward: NVIDIA's trailing-twelve-month revenue per employee is $7,213,548, the Vera Rubin ramp is described in the most recent earnings call as the fastest product ramp in NVIDIA's history, and a Staff-level engineer with RTL-through-tapeout experience on three shipped GPU/accelerator programs is precisely the profile that sustains that ramp. The stock carries 38.2% annualized volatility and a current drawdown of -10.2%, which means the grant dollar value at hire is the only number you actually control — future price is not.

computed equity room

Signing bonus

$60K → $79K (floor $60K)

The $60,000 signing bonus is already on the table; the ask here is a $19,000 increment to reach $79,000. This is a low-friction, one-time ask that does not affect NVIDIA's ongoing compensation run-rate. If the equity grant cannot move to $370,000, a signing increase to $79,000 partially bridges the gap in year one. Separately — and this is a question, not an assertion — confirm whether the signing bonus carries a repayment obligation and under what conditions, because that term was not included in the offer details you have in hand.

low-friction one-time ask, added to the signing already offered, when base is already at market

Scope, title & level

non-cash lever

No dollar figure is attached to this lever, but it is not optional. Before you sign, ask three specific questions: what is the annual target bonus percentage at IC5 and how has it actually paid out for the last two years; what equity refresh cadence applies at this level and when is the first refresh evaluated; and what change-of-control acceleration applies to unvested RSUs — single-trigger, double-trigger, or none — and get that answer from the plan document, not a recruiter summary. These answers materially affect the real value of a four-year commitment, and the offer as written does not answer any of them.

non-cash lever: leveling, scope, and equity-refresh cadence

Scripts

Written to be sent as they are. Edit any of them before you copy.

Equity Counter — Initial Email to RecruiterEmail

Hi [Recruiter name], Thank you so much for putting this offer together — I'm genuinely excited about the role and the team, and the Vera Rubin ramp is exactly the kind of program I want to be part of. I've had a chance to review everything carefully. The base and signing are strong, and I appreciate the thought that went into the package. The one place I'd like to have a conversation is the equity grant. Based on the market data I've looked at for this role in California, and given the scope of what this position owns — RTL through tapeout on datacenter silicon — I was hoping we could get the RSU grant to $370,000. I want to be straightforward: that's the number I'm focused on, and I think it reflects both the market and the criticality of the silicon design function to the roadmap ahead. Is there flexibility there? I'd love to find a way to close that gap and get this done. Thanks again, [Your name]

Editable — tweak before you send

Verbal Ask — Phone or Video Call with RecruiterSay this

I really appreciate everything that went into this offer, and I want to be clear — I'm excited about this role and I want to make it work. The base is strong, and I understand that. The one thing I'd like to talk through is the equity. Based on what I've seen for comparable roles in this market, and given the scope of the work — leading silicon design on datacenter programs — I was hoping we could get the RSU grant to $370,000. That's the number I'm focused on. Is there any flexibility there?

Editable — tweak before you send

Best and Final — If Recruiter Says the Offer Is FirmEmail

Hi [Recruiter name], I appreciate you going back to the team on this. I understand there are constraints, and I want to find a path forward. If the RSU grant can't move to $370,000, I'd ask whether we could look at the signing bonus instead. Bringing that to $79,000 would help bridge the gap in year one, and I know it's a simpler ask on your end since it doesn't affect the ongoing comp structure. I'm ready to sign as soon as we can close one of those two gaps. What's possible? Thanks, [Your name]

Editable — tweak before you send

Competing Offer — Conditional FrameSay this

I want to be transparent with you because I respect the process. If I have another offer in hand when we're finalizing this, I'll share that context directly — I'm not trying to create pressure, I just want to make sure we're both working with the same information. What I can tell you right now is that the market for silicon design engineers with datacenter tapeout experience is genuinely competitive, and the $370,000 equity number I've asked for reflects that. I'd much rather close this with you than have that conversation become more complicated. Is there a way to get there?

Editable — tweak before you send

When they push back

“Your base is already at the top of our band for this level.”
I completely understand, and I'm not asking to move the base — I think the base is fair and I'm not pushing on it. The ask is entirely on the equity side. I'd like to get the RSU grant to $370,000. Can we talk about whether there's room there?
“The equity grant is set by a formula tied to level — we can't change it.”
That's helpful to know. If the grant itself is fixed, can we look at the signing bonus instead? Getting that to $79,000 would help me bridge the gap in year one. Is that a lever that has more flexibility?
“We don't have budget to go higher on equity right now.”
I hear you. Can I ask — is there a refresh grant process at this level, and when would the first one typically be evaluated? Understanding the longer-term equity picture would help me think about this more holistically.
“We've already come up from our initial number to get here.”
I appreciate that, and I don't take it for granted. I'm genuinely close — the base is strong and I want this role. The one gap I'm trying to close is on the equity side, and $370,000 is the number that gets me there. Is there any room to move, even partially?
“Can you tell us what other offers you have so we can compare?”
I'd rather keep the focus on what makes sense for this role specifically — the scope of the work, the market for this skill set, and what it takes to make a four-year commitment feel right. The number I've asked for is $370,000 on the equity grant, and I think that's a fair reflection of both. Is there flexibility there?

Walk-away line

“I've genuinely valued this process and I respect the team — if the equity grant can't reach $370,000 and the signing can't reach $79,000, I need to step back from this one, but I'd welcome the chance to reconnect if the situation changes.”

Targets are computed from your offer and an 8% base / 15% equity negotiation-room estimate, anchored to the DOL LCA market band for California, where your base sits at roughly the 89th percentile. Base is held, not pushed: the deterministic market read places it above the anchor, so the uplift below comes from the levers that remain. They are derived deterministically, not written by the model.

Who to talk to — and in what order

Comp lives with different people than you think. Aim each ask at the person who can actually move it.

Recruiter

Owns the offer number and can move base / signing within a set band.

Your first channel. Make the case here: give them the market floor and one clear, specific ask. Stay warm — they're your messenger, not your obstacle.

Hiring manager

Owns level, scope, and the business case for hiring you.

Your advocate. Loop them in for a level bump, equity, or when the recruiter says the band is fixed — they can request an exception the recruiter can't.

Compensation team

Sets the salary bands; rarely negotiates with you directly.

You almost never talk to them. But the hiring manager can push an out-of-band exception up to them — which is why winning the manager matters.

When they say “this is our final offer”

01
“Final” is usually a close, not a wall. Stay gracious, restate your value in one line, and make a single specific, justified ask — not a list.
02
If base is capped, trade levers: pivot to a signing bonus, an equity refresh, an accelerated first review, or a title/level adjustment.
03
Only invoke a deadline or competing interest if it's real. A bluff that gets called costs you leverage and goodwill.
04
Give them an easy yes: name the one thing that turns a maybe into a signature today.

Say this

“I really want to make this work — I’m ready to sign. The one thing that would let me say yes today is [specific ask]. Is there any room there?”

Base sits at the 89th percentile — push equity

Your $235,000 base already clears the California market median of $183,227 by a wide margin and lands at the 89th percentile of the DOL H-1B/LCA band (n=87). That placement means base is largely optimized; the more productive ask is a larger initial RSU grant. The $320,000 equity grant is the component with the most room to move, and at a company generating $7,213,548 in trailing-twelve-month revenue per employee, there is a clear business case for paying top-of-house in equity to retain engineers who ship datacenter silicon.

Evidence anchor: DOL H-1B/LCA California band (n=87); COMPUTED METRICS revenue/employee TTM

Vera Rubin ramp creates urgent silicon design demand

On the most recent earnings call, NVIDIA stated that Vera Rubin 'commenced production shipments earlier this month' and is 'expected to mark the fastest product ramp in NVIDIA's history,' with purchase orders already in hand from every major hyperscaler. A Staff-level accelerator design engineer with RTL-through-tapeout experience on three shipped GPU/accelerator programs is exactly the profile needed to sustain that ramp — and that scarcity has a price. Ask directly whether the grant can be sized to reflect the criticality of the silicon design function to the Vera Rubin and next-generation roadmap.

Evidence anchor: NVIDIA FY2027 Q2 earnings transcript (strategic priorities); CAREER CONTEXT

Equity upside is real but so is the volatility — negotiate grant size now

The analyst consensus median price target is $322.5 per share against a current price of $211.755, implying meaningful upside; the base-case equity scenario on your $320,000 grant projects to $487,356 at that target. However, annualized volatility is 38.2% and the stock carries a current drawdown of -10.2%, so the grant dollar value at award is the number you can actually negotiate — future price is not. Pressing for a higher grant value now is the only lever you control; ask whether the grant can be increased to $400,000–$450,000 to reflect both your seniority and the stock's inherent price risk.

Evidence anchor: COMPUTED METRICS: equity scenarios, stock volatility, analyst price targets

Ask about equity refresh cadence and vesting structure

The offer specifies a 4-year vesting term and a $320,000 initial grant, but the intake collected no information on refresh cadence, cliff terms, or clawback provisions — and none of those appear in the offer details you have in hand. At a company where FY2026 NEO stock awards ranged from $12.5M to $24.8M and where the Vera Rubin ramp will extend well beyond your initial vest window, the refresh schedule is a material part of your long-term economics. Before signing, ask specifically: what is the annual refresh grant target at IC5, when does the first tranche vest, and is there a clawback or repayment window tied to early departure?

Evidence anchor: KNOWN OFFER TERMS; DEF 14A FY2026 NEO stock awards (Kress $12,825,872; Huang $24,800,511)

Signing bonus is one-time — ask to convert part to equity

The $60,000 signing bonus is a non-recurring cash payment; once spent, it contributes nothing to your ongoing annual economics. The headline package of $615,000 (base plus equity plus signing) is 3.4× the base-cash market median, but that multiple is partly inflated by a one-time component. If NVIDIA is unwilling to increase the RSU grant outright, ask whether any portion of the signing bonus can be converted into additional RSUs — a structure that aligns your retention incentive with the company's own interest in keeping silicon design talent through the Vera Rubin production cycle and beyond. Also confirm whether the signing bonus carries a repayment obligation, as that term was not collected in your offer details.

Evidence anchor: COMP PLACEMENT headline package; KNOWN OFFER TERMS; COMPUTED METRICS

Questions they cannot fake

1
What is the annual target bonus percentage for IC5, and what did it actually pay out — as a percentage of target — for fiscal years 2025 and 2026?
Your offer letter shows $235,000 base and a $320,000 RSU grant, but no bonus figure. Until you have the target percentage and the actual payout history, the headline package of $615,000 (base plus equity plus signing) is incomplete — bonus is a real cash flow that belongs in any year-one comparison. Two years of actual payout data tells you whether the plan pays at, above, or below target, which matters more than the stated percentage alone.
2
What change-of-control acceleration applies to unvested RSUs — single-trigger, double-trigger, or none — and can you provide the governing plan document rather than a recruiter summary?
NVIDIA's market cap sits at roughly $5.1 trillion and the stock carries annualized volatility of 38.2%. At that scale and price movement, the treatment of unvested equity in an acquisition or merger is a material economic question, not a formality. A double-trigger provision can leave unvested grants exposed if an acquirer restructures the role; a single-trigger accelerates everything at close. The recruiter's verbal description has no legal weight — you need the plan document language.
3
What is the equity refresh cadence and the typical grant size at IC5 — and how has the refresh actually been structured for engineers at this level over the last two annual cycles?
Your $320,000 RSU grant vests over four years, but the offer carries no refresh commitment. At a stock price of $211.76 and analyst consensus pointing to a median target of $322.50, the grant's bear-to-bull scenario range runs from roughly $347,000 to $778,000 depending on where the stock lands. Whether you receive a meaningful refresh in years two and three determines whether your equity exposure compounds or stagnates — ask for specifics on cadence and sizing, not a general assurance that refreshes exist.
4
What is the vesting schedule within the four-year term — specifically, is there a cliff in year one, and if so, what are the exact cliff date and quarterly or annual vest dates thereafter?
The offer states a four-year vesting term but no cliff or schedule detail. If a one-year cliff applies, zero equity vests before roughly September 2027 — a meaningful liquidity gap given that the stock is currently 10.2% below its recent high and carries a 38.2% annualized volatility. Knowing the exact schedule lets you model your actual year-by-year cash equivalent and decide whether the $60,000 signing bonus adequately bridges any gap before first vest.

Dealbreakers to watch

Sustained Insider Selling at Scale
high
In the trailing 90 days, 2 distinct insiders executed 7 open-market sell trades totaling 3,785,740 shares — approximately $839.02M — with zero open-market buy trades recorded in the same window. One of those sellers, board member Mark Stevens, is classified as a sustained-pattern seller. At a stock price of $211.755 and annualized volatility of 38.2%, your $320,000 RSU grant is directly exposed to the same price risk those insiders are reducing. This does not make the offer wrong, but it is worth asking your recruiter how the equity refresh cadence works and whether the grant is priced at hire-date fair market value or a trailing average — the answer affects your effective entry price on every vesting tranche.
Source ↗ · SEC Form 4 filings, trailing 90-day insider pattern (high-confidence signal); filings dated 2026-09-02, 2026-09-04, 2026-09-08, 2026-09-11
Customer Concentration Risk Disclosed in Recent 10-Q
high
NVIDIA's Q2 FY2027 10-Q (filed 2026-08-26, period ending 2026-07-26) disclosed that approximately 44% of H1 FY2027 revenue came from three direct customers. Revenue of $96 billion in Q2 and a Q3 outlook of $108 billion (±2%) are built on a demand base where a shift in capex priorities at one or two hyperscalers could produce a sharp revenue step-down. For a silicon design engineer joining at IC5, the practical risk is that a demand correction would hit the datacenter GPU programs — exactly the work your background maps to — before it hits other parts of the business. Ask which product program your team supports and how its roadmap is funded relative to the Vera Rubin ramp.
Source ↗ · NVIDIA 10-Q filed 2026-08-26 (period 2026-07-26); real-time signal citing Benzinga/StockTitan on customer concentration disclosure
AI Demand Slowdown Narrative Creating Near-Term Stock Volatility
medium
On your offer date (2026-09-14), multiple outlets — Fast Company, Investors Business Daily, Invezz, and Investopedia — reported a chip-stock selloff tied to AI industry leaders calling for a pause in model scaling. The stock is already at a -10.2% current drawdown against a 12-month high, with annualized volatility of 38.2% and a max drawdown of -20.2% over the measurement period. The analyst consensus median target is $322.50 and the DCF model implies $229.41 — a wide spread that reflects genuine uncertainty about whether the current revenue trajectory (105.9% YoY growth over the 12 months ending 2026-07-26) is sustainable. Your bear-case equity scenario values the $320,000 grant at $346,684 at the DCF price; the base case reaches $487,356 at the consensus median. The spread between those two outcomes is $140,672 — material relative to your base. Ask how the team thinks about equity refresh grants if the stock re-rates, and whether performance-based RSU tranches exist at this level.
Source: Stock news headlines 2026-09-14 (Fast Company, IBD, Invezz, Investopedia); computed equity scenarios (bear/base) and volatility metrics
Field Operations Leadership Transition Adds Organizational Uncertainty
medium
Ajay Puri, EVP of Worldwide Field Operations since 2009, departed and was replaced by Nicholas Parker (hired from Microsoft Corporation, appointed 2026-08-24) — a transition confirmed by SEC filing. Separately, the Chief Accounting Officer role turned over in May 2026 when Scott Gawel joined from Intel to replace Donald Robertson, who announced retirement. Two senior operational roles changing within months of each other is not itself disqualifying at a 42,000-person company, but the 8-K transition scan is flagged as stale, meaning additional transitions may exist that this brief does not hold. For a silicon design role, the more relevant question is whether your direct engineering leadership chain has been stable — ask specifically about the VP or director level above your team.
Source ↗ · SEC 8-K filed 2026-06-28 (Nicholas Parker appointment); SEC DEF 14A filed 2026-05-12 (Robertson/Gawel CAO transition); graph coverage note: 8-K scan stale as of 2026-07-20

Pre-mortem: what would make this offer fail

These are the brief’s highest-friction warnings converted into diligence prompts before you sign.

1
Sustained insider selling pattern detected.
2
One early-warning signal was dropped: it did not fit the panel's length budget on a sentence boundary, and a signal cut mid-thought is not something a reader can monitor.

Canonical action signals

Highest leverage asks

Evidence confidence: medium

Questions they cannot fake

What is the annual target bonus percentage for IC5, and what did it actually pay out — as a percentage of target — for fiscal years 2025 and 2026? Why: Your offer letter shows $235,000 base and a $320,000 RSU grant, but no bonus figure. Until you have the target percentage and the actual payout history, the headline package of $615,000 (base plus equity plus signing) is incomplete — bonus is a real cash flow that belongs in any year-one comparison. Two years of actual payout data tells you whether the plan pays at, above, or below target, which matters more than the stated percentage alone.

Evidence confidence: medium

What change-of-control acceleration applies to unvested RSUs — single-trigger, double-trigger, or none — and can you provide the governing plan document rather than a recruiter summary? Why: NVIDIA's market cap sits at roughly $5.1 trillion and the stock carries annualized volatility of 38.2%. At that scale and price movement, the treatment of unvested equity in an acquisition or merger is a material economic question, not a formality. A double-trigger provision can leave unvested grants exposed if an acquirer restructures the role; a single-trigger accelerates everything at close. The recruiter's verbal description has no legal weight — you need the plan document language.

Evidence confidence: medium

What is the equity refresh cadence and the typical grant size at IC5 — and how has the refresh actually been structured for engineers at this level over the last two annual cycles? Why: Your $320,000 RSU grant vests over four years, but the offer carries no refresh commitment. At a stock price of $211.76 and analyst consensus pointing to a median target of $322.50, the grant's bear-to-bull scenario range runs from roughly $347,000 to $778,000 depending on where the stock lands. Whether you receive a meaningful refresh in years two and three determines whether your equity exposure compounds or stagnates — ask for specifics on cadence and sizing, not a general assurance that refreshes exist.

Evidence confidence: medium

If you regret this in 18 months

Evidence confidence: medium

Early warning signals

Evidence confidence: medium

Dealbreaker check

Evidence confidence: medium

Not available for this run: exit terms on the public record. Every stream we checked — rendered, held, or absent — is itemized in the appendix coverage matrix.

07 · Your profile vs this role

Your profile vs this role

Optional user-provided profile context is separated from company diligence so the brief remains clear about what is public data and what is personalized advice.

Headline suggestions

Staff Silicon Design Engineer | GPU & Accelerator Microarchitecture | RTL-to-Tapeout | Synopsys Timing Closure

Reflects your current Staff-level title at Tenstorrent, surfaces the exact domain NVIDIA hires for in this role, and front-loads keywords their ATS and recruiters scan for first.

Senior/Staff Silicon Design Engineer — Datacenter GPU & AI Accelerator SoCs | Low-Power RTL | UVM | AMD · Qualcomm · Tenstorrent

Naming the three employers signals tier-1 pedigree immediately; 'Datacenter GPU' maps directly to NVIDIA's core business and differentiates you from mobile/consumer candidates.

Silicon Design Engineer (Staff) | Accelerator & GPU SoC Microarchitecture | RTL Through Tapeout on 3 Shipped Programs

'3 Shipped Programs' is a concrete credibility signal in a headline, rare and memorable; keeps the focus on delivery rather than just skills.

Summary feedback

The summary is accurate but passive — it describes what you did without connecting it to what NVIDIA is trying to accomplish. Open with a forward-looking sentence that names the problem space (e.g., high-throughput datacenter compute, AI training/inference silicon) before listing your credentials.
'Illustrative specimen profile' must be removed before any real submission; it undermines credibility instantly.
Quantify wherever possible: three shipped programs is good, but add die area owned, frequency targets hit, or power reduction percentages if you have them — NVIDIA's JDs consistently ask for tapeout ownership metrics.
Call out low-power design (UPF) and synthesis/timing closure explicitly in the summary; these appear in nearly every NVIDIA Senior Silicon Design Engineer posting and are currently buried in your skills list only.
Nine years is strong tenure — reframe it as a progression arc (IC → block lead → staff) to show leadership trajectory, which matters for the Senior level at NVIDIA where tech lead expectations are common.

Experience rewrites

Silicon Design Engineer II — Advanced Micro Devices (2017–2021)

Designed and verified RTL blocks in SystemVerilog for GPU SoC programs targeting [segment]; contributed to synthesis and timing closure using Synopsys DC/PT across [N]-stage pipelines. Participated in UVM testbench development and sign-off for [block name or function].

The original position has no bullet content in the export. Even a reconstructed skeleton with placeholders signals to NVIDIA reviewers that you have RTL-through-tapeout continuity from your earliest role, not just your recent ones. Fill in specifics before submitting.

Senior Silicon Design Engineer — Qualcomm (2021–2024)

Led a 6-engineer RTL block team on a datacenter accelerator SoC; owned microarchitecture definition, RTL implementation, and timing closure for [block] targeting [frequency/process node]. Drove low-power strategy using UPF/CPF, achieving [X]% dynamic power reduction. Coordinated with physical design and DV teams through two tapeouts.

'Led a 6-engineer block team' is your strongest leadership proof point and should be the first clause, not buried. Adding process node and frequency targets gives NVIDIA's hiring panel the technical specificity they use to calibrate level. Low-power ownership is a differentiator for datacenter parts where power is a first-class constraint.

Staff Engineer, Accelerator Design — Tenstorrent (2024–present)

Driving microarchitecture and RTL implementation for next-generation AI accelerator fabric at Tenstorrent; defining block-level architecture for [compute/memory/interconnect] subsystem on [process node]. Establishing RTL coding guidelines and synthesis flows adopted across the design team.

Your current role is the most relevant to NVIDIA's open position and should be the most detailed. Mentioning that you set team-wide standards signals staff-level scope and influence, which aligns with NVIDIA's Senior SDE expectations for cross-team impact.

Skills gap — worth adding

Formal verification (JasperGold or equivalent) — appears in a majority of NVIDIA Senior Silicon Design Engineer JDsPhysical design awareness (floorplanning, P&R handoff) — NVIDIA expects senior designers to co-own PD decisionsCUDA or GPU programming model familiarity — even basic knowledge signals domain fluency to NVIDIA interviewersPower/performance/area (PPA) trade-off analysis — should be listed explicitly, not implied through other skillsExperience with advanced process nodes (5nm/3nm TSMC or Samsung) — NVIDIA's current programs are on leading-edge nodes and they screen for this

Skills gap — may be oversold

'SoC integration' as a standalone skill is vague at Staff level — without a qualifier (e.g., 'multi-die SoC integration' or 'chiplet integration') it reads as junior-level work and may underrepresent or misrepresent your actual scope'UVM verification' listed as a primary skill may signal a verification background to screeners when your trajectory is clearly design; reposition it as 'design-for-verifiability / UVM testbench co-development' to keep the framing correct

Profile-to-role fit

82/100

The career arc — AMD IC → Qualcomm Senior with block lead ownership → Tenstorrent Staff on AI accelerators — is nearly ideal for NVIDIA's Senior Silicon Design Engineer role. GPU and accelerator domain continuity is strong, and the progression from individual contributor to 6-person team lead to staff scope maps well to NVIDIA's leveling. Score is not higher because the export lacks quantified tapeout metrics, formal verification exposure is not evidenced, and the current Tenstorrent role (started June 2024) is early-tenure, which some NVIDIA panels flag. Closing the skills gaps around formal methods and PPA analysis would push fit above 90.

A self-profile signal from your upload — separate from the company composite score.

Actions this week

Audit every NVIDIA Senior Silicon Design Engineer posting on their careers site and extract the 10 most repeated technical keywords; cross-check against your skills section and add any legitimate matches you currently omit.
Add at least one hard metric to each position — frequency target, process node, block size in kGates, or power reduction percentage — before the profile goes live or a resume is submitted.
Remove 'Illustrative specimen profile' from the summary immediately.
Request a LinkedIn recommendation from your Qualcomm manager or a peer who can speak to the block lead work; NVIDIA recruiters do read recommendations for senior hires.
Draft a 3-sentence 'why NVIDIA' narrative anchored to their datacenter GPU roadmap (Blackwell architecture is public) so you are ready for the recruiter screen — this also helps you tailor the summary's closing line.
If you have any exposure to formal verification tools even in a review or sign-off capacity, add it to skills now; if not, complete a free JasperGold or SymbiYosys tutorial this week so you can honestly list 'formal verification familiarity.'

All employer names, titles, dates, and skills are drawn exclusively from the LinkedIn export provided. No credentials or employers were inferred or invented.

Bullet content suggested for experience rewrites uses bracketed placeholders where the export contained no detail; the candidate must supply accurate figures before use.

NVIDIA job description patterns referenced are based on publicly available postings for 'Senior Silicon Design Engineer' as of the knowledge cut-off; always verify against the live posting before submitting.

Trajectory fit score is an editorial judgment based on role alignment signals in the export and is not derived from any proprietary NVIDIA hiring data.

Purchase your report to unlock full details

Live SEC filings, peer comp, scripts, provenance, and canonical synthesis — built for your company and offer.

Get the Offer Brief — $49 Compare both brief tiers

What this brief covers — and what it can’t

Covered, with receipts

Public-company evidence: financial health and trajectory, leadership and board signals, role-level exposure (restructuring filings, WARN notices), the citable market wage band, insider filing patterns, and the negotiation math built from them.

Not in public filings

Your future manager and team, day-to-day culture, benefit terms the filings don’t carry (the 401k match formula, PTO, parental leave, healthcare costs), and private-company comparisons. Where a DOL Form 5500 filing matched, the plan-level 401k facts appear above — the day-to-day terms still don’t. That’s what the verification questions in §6 are for — ask them before you sign.

Appendix

Evidence and methodology

The main brief stays readable; the supporting facts, confidence map, source logs, methodology, and export preview live here for auditability.

Supporting facts

Form 4 rows examined

100

Validated 8-K transition rows

Validation issues

Confidence and data gaps

55% of the trajectory weighting is not evidence-backed (30% renormalized out of the composite, 25% scored on a neutral prior).

Sources cross-referenced

SEC filings analyzed · 10-K/Q, 8-K, proxy

Transcript & filing facts

100

Form 4 insider rows

Leadership / board records

Layoff / WARN signals

160

Records cited · total

Data coverage

This tracks whether available evidence is rendered, held for methodology, gated by confidence, or unavailable.

Canonical verdict and one-number model

Rendered

Canonical

Rendered in the executive decision screen.

Canonical section claims

Rendered

Canonical · 48 items

Rendered across the guided chapters as concise evidence cards.

Supporting facts and methodology notes

Appendix Only

Canonical · 28 items

Kept in the appendix so the main report stays readable.

Revenue product and geographic segmentation

Rendered

Fetched · 9 items

Top segments are rendered in Company Quality; full rows remain source data.

Analyst estimates, grades, DCF, targets, earnings

Rendered

Fetched

Rendered as market-consensus cards instead of raw analyst feeds.

News, press releases, and M&A events

Rendered

Fetched · 6 items

Material recent events are summarized; raw feed clutter is omitted from the main flow.

Ownership concentration and financial health scores

Rendered

Fetched

Rendered in Role and Career Risk when it changes the risk read.

Career signal layer leadership and board coverage

Rendered

Computed

Rendered as leadership tape, coverage note, and board count.

O*NET, BEA, WARN, SEC facts, lobbying, USAspending, FEC

Rendered

Open Data · 4 items

Verified public-data facts are rendered through canonical claims and the evidence appendix.

Evidence appendix

Evidence behind the dossier: supporting facts, methodology, confidence rationale, filing logs, and exportable rows. Empty sections describe what was reviewed rather than silently disappearing.

Facts

100

Insider records

8-K records

Validation issues

What those validation issues are

8 findings from the seal-time checks; 8 advisory (the brief ships and a human reviews). Anything that could make a claim untrue blocks the seal and never reaches this page.

The same sentence appears several times across the brief — a readability note, not a factual one.
A figure is restated more often than this brief's editorial rules allow — a readability note, not a factual one.

Supporting facts(28)

Quarterly revenue (Q1 FY2026): $44062.0M.
Company financial statements · high confidence · Q1 FY2026
Quarterly revenue (Q2 FY2026): $46743.0M.
Company financial statements · high confidence · Q2 FY2026
Quarterly revenue (Q3 FY2026): $57006.0M.
Company financial statements · high confidence · Q3 FY2026
Quarterly revenue (Q4 FY2026): $68127.0M.
Company financial statements · high confidence · Q4 FY2026
Quarterly revenue (Q1 FY2027): $81615.0M.
Company financial statements · high confidence · Q1 FY2027
Rule of 40 score: 130.9. Revenue growth 105.9% + FCF margin 25.0%.
Computed market metrics · high confidence · 2026-09-14T16:56:20.758Z
Revenue per employee: $7214K (+57.2% YoY).
Computed market metrics · medium confidence · 2026-09-14T16:56:20.758Z
Insider activity (90d): 7 open-market sell trades by 2 distinct sellers — 3,785,740 shares ≈ $839.02M, filed as 19 per-price fill rows, 0 open-market buy trades, sell share of trades 100%. Excluded as non-discretionary: 12 equity awards, 5 tax-withholding, 3 gifts. Pattern: sustained_selling. Signal: negative (high).
Form 4 insider activity · medium confidence · 2026-09-14T16:59:09.243Z
Equity scenario base case: analyst median implies $487,356 for the supplied grant.
Equity scenario model · high confidence · 2026-09-14T16:56:20.758Z
12-month stock risk: annualized volatility 38.2%, max drawdown -20.2%, current drawdown -10.2%.
Historical price model · high confidence · 2026-09-14T16:56:20.758Z
Nicholas Parker hire: Executive Vice President, Worldwide Field Operations.
SEC 8-K leadership event · medium confidence · 2026-08-24
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000104581026000060/nvda-20260628.htm
Suzanne Nora Johnson hire: member of the Board and member of the Audit Committee.
SEC 8-K leadership event · medium confidence · 2026-07-13
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000104581026000028/nvda-20260507.htm
Donald Robertson retirement: VP, Finance.
SEC 8-K leadership event · medium confidence · 2026-05-04
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000104581026000026/nvda-20260424.htm
Scott Gawel hire: VP and CAO.
SEC 8-K leadership event · medium confidence · 2026-05-04
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000104581026000026/nvda-20260424.htm
Persis Drell departure: Board of Directors.
SEC 8-K leadership event · medium confidence · 2026-01-20
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000104581026000003/nvda-20260120.htm
Board: 10 directors (9 of 10 independent).
Proxy statement board record · medium confidence · 2026
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000104581026000036/nvda-20260512.htm
SEC filing: 4 filed 2026-09-11 00:00:00.
SEC filing index · medium confidence · 2026-09-11 00:00:00
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000215218826000005/xslF345X06/wk-form4_1789160684.xml
SEC filing: 4 filed 2026-09-08 00:00:00.
SEC filing index · medium confidence · 2026-09-08 00:00:00
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000119903926000014/xslF345X06/wk-form4_1788901755.xml
SEC filing: 4 filed 2026-09-04 00:00:00.
SEC filing index · medium confidence · 2026-09-04 00:00:00
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000119764726000009/xslF345X06/wk-form4_1788555631.xml
Strategic coherence: 85/100 (Strong). Strong growth potential in AI and infrastructure sectors, with ongoing investment in partnerships and technology development.
Earnings call transcript · high confidence · 2026-09-14T16:59:09.243Z

Confidence map(8)

comp_reality · high Section has source-backed facts available.
leverage · medium Section has source-backed facts available.
leadership_stability · medium 8-K transition scan is stale; absence of transitions should not be interpreted as stability.
three_questions · medium Section has source-backed facts available.
counterfactual · low Counterfactual recommender needs alumni outcomes and peer score generation.
five_year_forecast · low No released career-path aggregate buckets for this role family; the reference class here is public only — market peers and SEC leadership transitions.
organizational_diagnosis · medium Section has source-backed facts available.
red_flags · medium One early-warning signal was dropped: it did not fit the panel's length budget on a sentence boundary, and a signal cut mid-thought is not something a reader can monitor.

Methodology(11)

Trajectory Score weights organizational health, leadership stability, strategic coherence, alumni outcomes, promotion velocity, skills marketability, and role-specific risk.
One Number model varies by report mode: NPV for offer evaluation, EV delta for stay-or-go, trajectory percentile for job seekers, CCVI for career trajectory.
Public-source leadership signals come from SEC 8-K and DEF 14A records when available.
Leadership coverage: stale. Leadership=ready, board=ready, transitions=stale. 12 leadership roles, 10 directors, 8 transition records.
Ticker: NVDA. Company: NVIDIA Corporation.
Offer inputs: base $235,000, signing $60,000, equity $320,000.
No user-contributed tenure aggregates available.
Career-path aggregates use optional user contributions; this report scores public filings only.
Cross-section findings are AI-generated from assembled Tier 2 data and validated for multi-section citation.
Pre-mortem output was generated by Footnote's structured risk model.
Insider sentiment aggregate was not available for this ticker.

8-K leadership log(8)

[
  {
    "new_role": "Executive Vice President, Worldwide Field Operations",
    "source_url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000104581026000060/nvda-20260628.htm",
    "former_role": null,
    "person_name": "Nicholas Parker",
    "source_quote": "appointed Nicholas Parker, age 55, as Executive Vice President, Worldwide Field Operations",
    "effective_date": "2026-08-24",
    "prior_employer": "Microsoft Corporation",
    "transition_type": "hire"
  },
  {
    "new_role": "member of the Board and member of the Audit Committee",
    "source_url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000104581026000028/nvda-20260507.htm",
    "former_role": null,
    "person_name": "Suzanne Nora Johnson",
    "source_quote": "appointed Suzanne Nora Johnson as a member of the Board and as a member of the Audit Committee",
    "effective_date": "2026-07-13",
    "prior_employer": null,
    "transition_type": "hire"
  },
  {
    "new_role": "VP, Finance",
    "source_url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000104581026000026/nvda-20260424.htm",
    "former_role": "VP and Chief Accounting Officer",
    "person_name": "Donald Robertson",
    "source_quote": "intention to retire from his role as VP and CAO",
    "effective_date": "2026-05-04",
    "prior_employer": null,
    "transition_type": "retirement"
  },
  {
    "new_role": "VP and CAO",
    "source_url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000104581026000026/nvda-20260424.htm",
    "former_role": null,
    "person_name": "Scott Gawel",
    "source_quote": "appointed Scott Gawel, age 55, as VP and CAO",
    "effective_date": "2026-05-04",
    "prior_employer": "Intel Corporation",
    "transition_type": "hire"
  },
  {
    "new_role": null,
    "source_url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000104581026000003/nvda-20260120.htm",
    "former_role": "Board of Directors",
    "person_name": "Persis Drell",
    "source_quote": "Persis Drell resigned from the Board of Directors, or the Board, of NVIDIA Corporation",
    "effective_date": "2026-01-20",
    "prior_employer": null,
    "transition_type": "departure"
  },
  {
    "new_role": null,
    "source_url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000104581025000197/nvda-20250731.htm",
    "former_role": "Board of Directors member, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee member",
    "person_name": "Ellen Ochoa",
    "source_quote": "Dr. Ochoa’s resignation is for personal reasons",
    "effective_date": "2025-08-05",
    "prior_employer": null,
    "transition_type": "departure"
  },
  {
    "new_role": "member of the Board",
    "source_url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000104581024000300/0001045810-24-000300.txt",
    "former_role": null,
    "person_name": "Ellen Ochoa",
    "source_quote": "Dr. Ochoa is expected to be appointed to serve as a member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board.",
    "effective_date": "2024-11-07",
    "prior_employer": null,
    "transition_type": "hire"
  },
  {
    "new_role": null,
    "source_url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000104581026000060/nvda-20260628.htm",
    "former_role": "Executive Vice President, Worldwide Field Operations",
    "person_name": "Ajay K. Puri",
    "source_quote": "intention to retire from his role effective upon the employment commencement date of his successor.",
    "effective_date": null,
    "prior_employer": null,
    "transition_type": "retirement"
  }
]

Insider trading log(100)

[
  {
    "url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000215218826000005/0002152188-26-000005-index.htm",
    "price": 0,
    "symbol": "NVDA",
    "formType": "4",
    "companyCik": "0001045810",
    "filingDate": "2026-09-11",
    "typeOfOwner": "officer: EVP, Worldwide Field Ops",
    "reportingCik": "0002152188",
    "securityName": "Common Stock",
    "reportingName": "Parker Nicholas P.",
    "securitiesOwned": 172507,
    "transactionDate": "2026-09-09",
    "transactionType": "A-Award",
    "directOrIndirect": "D",
    "securitiesTransacted": 172507,
    "acquisitionOrDisposition": "A"
  },
  {
    "url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000119903926000014/0001199039-26-000014-index.htm",
    "price": 227.6954,
    "symbol": "NVDA",
    "formType": "4",
    "companyCik": "0001045810",
    "filingDate": "2026-09-08",
    "typeOfOwner": "director",
    "reportingCik": "0001199039",
    "securityName": "Common Stock",
    "reportingName": "STEVENS MARK A",
    "securitiesOwned": 3160063,
    "transactionDate": "2026-09-03",
    "transactionType": "S-Sale",
    "directOrIndirect": "I",
    "securitiesTransacted": 198707,
    "acquisitionOrDisposition": "D"
  },
  {
    "url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000119903926000014/0001199039-26-000014-index.htm",
    "price": 228.2703,
    "symbol": "NVDA",
    "formType": "4",
    "companyCik": "0001045810",
    "filingDate": "2026-09-08",
    "typeOfOwner": "director",
    "reportingCik": "0001199039",
    "securityName": "Common Stock",
    "reportingName": "STEVENS MARK A",
    "securitiesOwned": 3158770,
    "transactionDate": "2026-09-03",
    "transactionType": "S-Sale",
    "directOrIndirect": "I",
    "securitiesTransacted": 1293,
    "acquisitionOrDisposition": "D"
  },
  {
    "url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000119903926000014/0001199039-26-000014-index.htm",
    "price": 229.8705,
    "symbol": "NVDA",
    "formType": "4",
    "companyCik": "0001045810",
    "filingDate": "2026-09-08",
    "typeOfOwner": "director",
    "reportingCik": "0001199039",
    "securityName": "Common Stock",
    "reportingName": "STEVENS MARK A",
    "securitiesOwned": 2958770,
    "transactionDate": "2026-09-03",
    "transactionType": "S-Sale",
    "directOrIndirect": "I",
    "securitiesTransacted": 200000,
    "acquisitionOrDisposition": "D"
  },
  {
    "url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000119903926000014/0001199039-26-000014-index.htm",
    "price": 230.4039,
    "symbol": "NVDA",
    "formType": "4",
    "companyCik": "0001045810",
    "filingDate": "2026-09-08",
    "typeOfOwner": "director",
    "reportingCik": "0001199039",
    "securityName": "Common Stock",
    "reportingName": "STEVENS MARK A",
    "securitiesOwned": 2761590,
    "transactionDate": "2026-09-04",
    "transactionType": "S-Sale",
    "directOrIndirect": "I",
    "securitiesTransacted": 197180,
    "acquisitionOrDisposition": "D"
  },
  {
    "url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000119903926000014/0001199039-26-000014-index.htm",
    "price": 231.1677,
    "symbol": "NVDA",
    "formType": "4",
    "companyCik": "0001045810",
    "filingDate": "2026-09-08",
    "typeOfOwner": "director",
    "reportingCik": "0001199039",
    "securityName": "Common Stock",
    "reportingName": "STEVENS MARK A",
    "securitiesOwned": 2523770,
    "transactionDate": "2026-09-04",
    "transactionType": "S-Sale",
    "directOrIndirect": "I",
    "securitiesTransacted": 237820,
    "acquisitionOrDisposition": "D"
  },
  {
    "url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000119903926000014/0001199039-26-000014-index.htm",
    "price": 233.4615,
    "symbol": "NVDA",
    "formType": "4",
    "companyCik": "0001045810",
    "filingDate": "2026-09-08",
    "typeOfOwner": "director",
    "reportingCik": "0001199039",
    "securityName": "Common Stock",
    "reportingName": "STEVENS MARK A",
    "securitiesOwned": 2341142,
    "transactionDate": "2026-09-04",
    "transactionType": "S-Sale",
    "directOrIndirect": "I",
    "securitiesTransacted": 182628,
    "acquisitionOrDisposition": "D"
  },
  {
    "url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000119903926000014/0001199039-26-000014-index.htm",
    "price": 234.0043,
    "symbol": "NVDA",
    "formType": "4",
    "companyCik": "0001045810",
    "filingDate": "2026-09-08",
    "typeOfOwner": "director",
    "reportingCik": "0001199039",
    "securityName": "Common Stock",
    "reportingName": "STEVENS MARK A",
    "securitiesOwned": 2336531,
    "transactionDate": "2026-09-04",
    "transactionType": "S-Sale",
    "directOrIndirect": "I",
    "securitiesTransacted": 4611,
    "acquisitionOrDisposition": "D"
  },
  {
    "url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000119764726000009/0001197647-26-000009-index.htm",
    "price": 0,
    "symbol": "NVDA",
    "formType": "4",
    "companyCik": "0001045810",
    "filingDate": "2026-09-04",
    "typeOfOwner": "director",
    "reportingCik": "0001197647",
    "securityName": "Common",
    "reportingName": "COXE TENCH",
    "securitiesOwned": 24171360,
    "transactionDate": "2026-09-02",
    "transactionType": "G-Gift",
    "directOrIndirect": "I",
    "securitiesTransacted": 500000,
    "acquisitionOrDisposition": "D"
  },
  {
    "url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000215218826000003/0002152188-26-000003-index.htm",
    "price": 0,
    "symbol": "NVDA",
    "formType": "3",
    "companyCik": "0001045810",
    "filingDate": "2026-09-03",
    "typeOfOwner": "officer",
    "reportingCik": "0002152188",
    "securityName": "",
    "reportingName": "Parker Nicholas P.",
    "securitiesOwned": 0,
    "transactionDate": "2026-08-24",
    "transactionType": "",
    "directOrIndirect": null,
    "securitiesTransacted": 0,
    "acquisitionOrDisposition": ""
  },
  {
    "url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000119903926000012/0001199039-26-000012-index.htm",
    "price": 220.0959,
    "symbol": "NVDA",
    "formType": "4",
    "companyCik": "0001045810",
    "filingDate": "2026-09-02",
    "typeOfOwner": "director",
    "reportingCik": "0001199039",
    "securityName": "Common Stock",
    "reportingName": "STEVENS MARK A",
    "securitiesOwned": 4759871,
    "transactionDate": "2026-08-31",
    "transactionType": "S-Sale",
    "directOrIndirect": "I",
    "securitiesTransacted": 447400,
    "acquisitionOrDisposition": "D"
  },
  {
    "url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000119903926000012/0001199039-26-000012-index.htm",
    "price": 220.9105,
    "symbol": "NVDA",
    "formType": "4",
    "companyCik": "0001045810",
    "filingDate": "2026-09-02",
    "typeOfOwner": "director",
    "reportingCik": "0001199039",
    "securityName": "Common Stock",
    "reportingName": "STEVENS MARK A",
    "securitiesOwned": 4622271,
    "transactionDate": "2026-08-31",
    "transactionType": "S-Sale",
    "directOrIndirect": "I",
    "securitiesTransacted": 137600,
    "acquisitionOrDisposition": "D"
  },
  {
    "url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000119903926000012/0001199039-26-000012-index.htm",
    "price": 220.0589,
    "symbol": "NVDA",
    "formType": "4",
    "companyCik": "0001045810",
    "filingDate": "2026-09-02",
    "typeOfOwner": "director",
    "reportingCik": "0001199039",
    "securityName": "Common Stock",
    "reportingName": "STEVENS MARK A",
    "securitiesOwned": 4558770,
    "transactionDate": "2026-09-01",
    "transactionType": "S-Sale",
    "directOrIndirect": "I",
    "securitiesTransacted": 63501,
    "acquisitionOrDisposition": "D"
  },
  {
    "url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000119903926000012/0001199039-26-000012-index.htm",
    "price": 220.0761,
    "symbol": "NVDA",
    "formType": "4",
    "companyCik": "0001045810",
    "filingDate": "2026-09-02",
    "typeOfOwner": "director",
    "reportingCik": "0001199039",
    "securityName": "Common Stock",
    "reportingName": "STEVENS MARK A",
    "securitiesOwned": 4258770,
    "transactionDate": "2026-09-02",
    "transactionType": "S-Sale",
    "directOrIndirect": "I",
    "securitiesTransacted": 300000,
    "acquisitionOrDisposition": "D"
  },
  {
    "url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000119903926000012/0001199039-26-000012-index.htm",
    "price": 222.9204,
    "symbol": "NVDA",
    "formType": "4",
    "companyCik": "0001045810",
    "filingDate": "2026-09-02",
    "typeOfOwner": "director",
    "reportingCik": "0001199039",
    "securityName": "Common Stock",
    "reportingName": "STEVENS MARK A",
    "securitiesOwned": 3958770,
    "transactionDate": "2026-09-02",
    "transactionType": "S-Sale",
    "directOrIndirect": "I",
    "securitiesTransacted": 300000,
    "acquisitionOrDisposition": "D"
  },
  {
    "url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000119903926000012/0001199039-26-000012-index.htm",
    "price": 224.0715,
    "symbol": "NVDA",
    "formType": "4",
    "companyCik": "0001045810",
    "filingDate": "2026-09-02",
    "typeOfOwner": "director",
    "reportingCik": "0001199039",
    "securityName": "Common Stock",
    "reportingName": "STEVENS MARK A",
    "securitiesOwned": 3658770,
    "transactionDate": "2026-09-02",
    "transactionType": "S-Sale",
    "directOrIndirect": "I",
    "securitiesTransacted": 300000,
    "acquisitionOrDisposition": "D"
  },
  {
    "url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000119903926000012/0001199039-26-000012-index.htm",
    "price": 226.2704,
    "symbol": "NVDA",
    "formType": "4",
    "companyCik": "0001045810",
    "filingDate": "2026-09-02",
    "typeOfOwner": "director",
    "reportingCik": "0001199039",
    "securityName": "Common Stock",
    "reportingName": "STEVENS MARK A",
    "securitiesOwned": 3358770,
    "transactionDate": "2026-09-02",
    "transactionType": "S-Sale",
    "directOrIndirect": "I",
    "securitiesTransacted": 300000,
    "acquisitionOrDisposition": "D"
  },
  {
    "url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000169684126000010/0001696841-26-000010-index.htm",
    "price": 216.8411,
    "symbol": "NVDA",
    "formType": "4",
    "companyCik": "0001045810",
    "filingDate": "2026-09-02",
    "typeOfOwner": "officer: EVP, General Counsel and Sec",
    "reportingCik": "0001696841",
    "securityName": "Common Stock",
    "reportingName": "Teter Timothy S.",
    "securitiesOwned": 2710968,
    "transactionDate": "2026-08-31",
    "transactionType": "S-Sale",
    "directOrIndirect": "I",
    "securitiesTransacted": 6692,
    "acquisitionOrDisposition": "D"
  },
  {
    "url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000169684126000010/0001696841-26-000010-index.htm",
    "price": 217.9514,
    "symbol": "NVDA",
    "formType": "4",
    "companyCik": "0001045810",
    "filingDate": "2026-09-02",
    "typeOfOwner": "officer: EVP, General Counsel and Sec",
    "reportingCik": "0001696841",
    "securityName": "Common Stock",
    "reportingName": "Teter Timothy S.",
    "securitiesOwned": 2697055,
    "transactionDate": "2026-08-31",
    "transactionType": "S-Sale",
    "directOrIndirect": "I",
    "securitiesTransacted": 13913,
    "acquisitionOrDisposition": "D"
  },
  {
    "url": "https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000169684126000010/0001696841-26-000010-index.htm",
    "price": 218.5265,
    "symbol": "NVDA",
    "formType": "4",
    "companyCik": "0001045810",
    "filingDate": "2026-09-02",
    "typeOfOwner": "officer: EVP, General Counsel and Sec",
    "reportingCik": "0001696841",
    "securityName": "Common Stock",
    "reportingName": "Teter Timothy S.",
    "securitiesOwned": 2687660,
    "transactionDate": "2026-08-31",
    "transactionType": "S-Sale",
    "directOrIndirect": "I",
    "securitiesTransacted": 9395,
    "acquisitionOrDisposition": "D"
  }
]

Transcript pull(7)

“Expansion of partnership with AWS · Development and deployment of Vera Rubin · Investment in Frontier AI labs · Partnerships with infrastructure capital providers · Development of Groq 3 LPX”
Investment priority
“However, as I mentioned earlier, we expect to grow approximately 70% as we are supply constrained.”
Stated risk · Supply Constraints
“Given ongoing geopolitical uncertainty, there is no China data center compute revenue in our forward outlook.”
Stated risk · Geopolitical Uncertainty
“We are experiencing extreme pricing conditions in memory.”
Stated risk · Memory Pricing Conditions
“We've invested nearly $50 billion in the Frontier AI labs.”
Investment priority · AI Infrastructure
“We recently announced partnerships with 6 of the world's leading infrastructure capital providers...”
Investment priority · Partnerships with Capital Providers
“We expect Vera Rubin to mark the fastest product ramp in NVIDIA's history.”
Investment priority · Vera Rubin and CPU Development

Glossary(4)

8-K: SEC current report used for material company events, including executive appointments and departures.
DEF 14A: Definitive proxy statement containing board, governance, and executive disclosure.
Trajectory Score: Footnote's 0-100 estimate of career value and risk for a role/company decision.
K-anonymity: Privacy threshold that suppresses aggregate user-contributed metrics until enough contributors exist.

Export preview

CSV preview — first 10 rows of 28, exactly as the download serializes them.

id,claim,value,source_type,confidence
fact_001,Quarterly revenue (Q1 FY2026): $44062.0M.,44062000000,fmp_financials,high
fact_002,Quarterly revenue (Q2 FY2026): $46743.0M.,46743000000,fmp_financials,high
fact_003,Quarterly revenue (Q3 FY2026): $57006.0M.,57006000000,fmp_financials,high
fact_004,Quarterly revenue (Q4 FY2026): $68127.0M.,68127000000,fmp_financials,high
fact_005,Quarterly revenue (Q1 FY2027): $81615.0M.,81615000000,fmp_financials,high
fact_006,Rule of 40 score: 130.9. Revenue growth 105.9% + FCF margin 25.0%.,130.9,derived_fmp,high
fact_007,Revenue per employee: $7214K (+57.2% YoY).,7213548,derived_fmp,medium
fact_008,"Insider activity (90d): 7 open-market sell trades by 2 distinct sellers — 3,785,740 shares ≈ $839.02M, filed as 19 per-price fill rows, 0 open-market buy trades, sell share of trades 100%. Excluded as non-discretionary: 12 equity awards, 5 tax-withholding, 3 gifts. Pattern: sustained_selling. Signal: negative (high).",1,fmp_insider_trading,medium
fact_009,"Equity scenario base case: analyst median implies $487,356 for the supplied grant.",487356,derived_equity_scenario,high
fact_010,"12-month stock risk: annualized volatility 38.2%, max drawdown -20.2%, current drawdown -10.2%.",'-20.2,derived_price_history,high

JSON export contents (keys): facts, sections