Hi all, I have gone through guidance at Tech nation guide, further have read feedback from review team across the portal. I am curious to know: What do experts think of these documents arrangements? i-e: for Digital Technology - QA Engineer (10 years) - Exceptional Talent route:
LOR3: Chief Architect or CTO of current company 3.
MC: (Process Improvements & established leader)
Letter of Support from Head of Division & ex line manager now left the current company. (hes in different company now.)
Interview
Career counselling sessions
Guest speaker
Mentoring testing community
Blog writing for company 1 and 2.
OC1: (Significant contributions)
Things mentioned in LOR3 & LOR2 with all the evidences
Reference letter: Ex line manager from current company who now left the firm - Lead Of QA (however her current company is not product led-) - should I avoid this?
Testimony letter: Engineering manager- (Same company) with all the evidences
OC2: (Recognition beyond current role)
Things mentioned in LOR1 with all the evidences.
Interview
Guest speaker
Blog written for company 1 (still present at company’s official website).
Bear in mind that you can’t repeat evidence used in other criteria. The evidence listed don’t sound compelling, are there third party online evidence to very your claims? Where you a guest speaker at top tech industry conference? How structured is the mentoring contribution? Overall, from what you have listed, it doesn’t look like a strong evidence pack.
are there third party online evidence to very your claims: Yes.
Where you a guest speaker at top tech industry conference: Yes.
How structured is the mentoring contribution?: By structure do you mean? Is that the agenda for the session? It was pretty structured: Recorded , Agenda, Screenshots, Testimony messages - outcomes of those sessions - how they were helpful as well.
I will reiterate - would you please help in arranging them with me? thats where I needed an expert input the most:
Dear @pahuja & @Akash_Joshi - I understand you may have a busy schedule, but could you kindly take a moment to review the document arrangements above? Appreciate your support! Thanks
Your preparation so far is fair and shows good effort, however, I think you still have a lot to do.
That said, it is hard to properly advise on how to arrange your evidence without knowing how strong each one is. For instance, just saying “interview” or “guest speaker” does not tell much.
Interview with who? About what? Is there a video or picture evidence? How many people watched the interview or have been impacted by the interview?
Guest speaker at what event? How many people attended? What topic did you speak on? Do you have proof like photos or videos? - Should be a top tier tech or industry focused event.
For GitHub - what project or tool did you contribute to, and what exactly did you do? Is it an open source tool or just a common project? Are you listed as a contributor?
And being “mentioned by two leaders”- One needs to check how established they truly are, since that is relative.
There are things that make a piece of evidence strong, weak, or very weak - and that depends on the details and how closely it meets the Tech Nation’s guidelines and standard.
There are several areas that need strengthening before submission. The evidence you’ve listed needs more depth and third-party verification to meet Tech Nation’s current standards.
Your recommendation letters look solid with diverse seniority levels, but make sure each letter highlights completely different aspects of your work to avoid redundancy. For your evidence arrangement, avoid using the same proof across multiple criteria - this is a common mistake I see in rejected applications. Your mentorship activities need to demonstrate clear structure with selection criteria, measurable outcomes, and proof that it was an offline program with documented impact on participants’ careers.
Instead of just mentioning “interview” or “guest speaker,” could you tell us the scale, audience size, industry recognition, and measurable impact of these activities? Your GitHub contributions should demonstrate significant open-source impact, not just internal company work.
@Akash_Joshi and @Raphael thank you so much both, appreciate your time and support.
Guest speaker 1: I was invited to lead a interactive session knowledge sharing across multi-national team of QAs in one of the product-led companies outside UK, I have evidence in terms of videos, invite, & 3rd party validation and messages on how it was helpful session.
Interview: I was invited to community channel youtube (uk) over 133k subscriber and my video got 540+ views and it was related to how can we become software testers and can help UK digital sector. I have evidence of it as well.
However, my Github was just local company nothing open source, should I avoid this given in OC?
Mentioned by two leaders: Both international speakers in tech.
Guest speaker 2: I presented a deck on again on important of software testing thats outside UK to over 200 audiences I have agenda, invite, but more than 5 years ago (so I think it would not be count?)
I am curious to know should I provide support letter from ex line manager in MC along with interview and guest speaker?
Thanks for the details. The guest speaking and interview are commendable, however, may not carry enough weight as leading evidence for MC - mainly due to limited industry impact and platform recognition. A strong support letter from your ex line manager would help, but you may still need more industry focused, verifiable evidences to solidify your application’s strength.
Your evidence for guest speaking to multinational QA teams is more compelling than just Youtube videos. But, both need stronger supporting evidence to meet Tech Nation’s current standards. Focus on getting reference letters from event organizers that specifically mention audience size, selection criteria for speakers, and the lasting impact of your contributions.
Your mentorship activities need significant strengthening before submission. Tech Nation now requires mentorship to be primarily in-person, part of a structured program with clear selection criteria, and demonstrate measurable outcomes for participants. Document the selection process you used, include photos from in-person sessions, and get reference letters that specifically state this was a structured offline program with competitive selection.
You can use the GitHub evidence for OC3, as long as it’s related to company work.