Summary & bridge name the switch, connect the dots for them
[Old title] moving into [new field], with [X years] of [the genuinely relevant part of your old career].
The bridge: [Old career] gave me [transferable skill 1], [transferable skill 2] and [proof scale — "managing $200k budgets / 12-person teams / 400 customers"]. I've spent the last [months] re-skilling through [course/projects/certification], building [project name], which is exactly the work this role does: [one sentence].
Transferable skills in action 2–3 blocks · each proof can come from the old career, a course, or a side project
[Skill the new field demands — their words]
- [Old company / project] — [what you did framed in the NEW field's language + number]
- [Course / side project] — [what you built or learned to a standard + outcome]
[Skill 2]
- [Context] — [result sentence]
[Skill 3 — ideally the newest/most technical]
- [Context] — [result sentence]
Career history compact · each job gets a "why it matters now" line
[Most recent Job Title], [Company]
[Mon Year] – [Mon Year]
→ Relevance read: [the one thing from this job the new employer should care about]
[Job Title], [Company]
[Mon Year] – [Mon Year]
→ Relevance read: [one line]
[Job Title], [Company]
[Mon Year] – [Mon Year]
→ Relevance read: [one line]
Learning & credentials your investment in the switch — show the receipts
[Certificate / bootcamp / course] — [Provider, Year — include hours if serious, e.g. "300-hour"]
[Self-taught portfolio: project 1 · project 2 — links]
[Original degree] — [Institution, Year]
The rule of one page, one story: every line here should argue the same case — "this person already does 70% of the job, and has receipts for the other 30%". If a bullet doesn't support that argument, it goes. Relevance beats chronology every time.