Hi,
Thank you for your previous guidance regarding the selection of recommenders for my Global Talent Visa application.
I have now organised my available evidence and would appreciate your advice on how best to allocate it across the Mandatory Criterion (MC) and Optional Criteria (OCs).
My aim is to identify the strongest evidence for each criterion, avoid unnecessary overlap, and structure my application in line with the applicable Tech Nation guidance.
1. Mandatory Criterion (MC): Potential Leadership and Sector Recognition
-
MC1: Invitation and evidence of having served as an IEEE conference session chair in India in 2026.
-
MC2: National media feature published by Silicon India about my research and work in sports analytics and digital technology.
-
MC3: Invitation and evidence of having served as an IEEE keynote speaker and panel leader at an international conference in 2026.
2. Optional Criterion 2 (OC2): Contribution to the Digital Technology Sector Outside My Day-to-Day Work
-
OC2-1: Invitation to deliver an industry expert masterclass on artificial intelligence in sports analytics at my undergraduate university, attended by over 120 students. I have the invitation, certificate and trophy.
-
OC2-2: A live cricket analytics website independently developed by me to make sports analytics more accessible to grassroots clubs. The platform is being used or tested by clubs and individuals. I can obtain letters from cricket clubs in India and the UK confirming their use of the platform, the value it provides, and how it helps clubs that may not have the budget for traditional analytics solutions.
-
OC2-3: Supporting evidence of the platform and its usage, including website screenshots, club profiles, match-tagging records and sample PDF reports generated from matches.
3. Optional Criterion 4 (OC4): Academic Research
-
OC4-1: First IEEE research paper published following an international conference.
-
OC4-2: Second IEEE research paper published following an international conference.
-
OC4-3: Evidence of research presentations at international conferences, including presentation certificates and relevant conference documentation.
-
OC4-4: Potential research endorsement letter from a senior academic who held a technical programme leadership role at the conferences where I presented my research and who personally observed my presentations and research discussions.
I would appreciate your advice on the following questions:
-
Does each piece of evidence fit the criterion under which I have currently placed it, or would any item be stronger under a different criterion?
-
Is the proposed evidence for the Mandatory Criterion suitable for demonstrating recognition and potential leadership in digital technology?
-
For the independently developed platform, should the product, club testimonials, evidence of actual usage and generated reports be combined into one evidence document, or would a different structure be more effective?
-
Would the invited expert masterclass be stronger under OC2, or would it be better positioned under another criterion?
-
For OC4, are the two published IEEE papers, conference presentations and academic endorsement letter sufficient in principle? Are there any concerns I should address regarding publication standards, peer review or the type of research evidence?
-
Considering the maximum of 10 supporting evidence documents, how would you recommend prioritising and grouping these items to create the strongest application?
-
Are there any significant gaps in my current evidence portfolio, or any evidence you would recommend replacing with stronger alternatives?
I understand that the quality, relevance and credibility of the evidence matter more than the number of achievements. I would appreciate your honest assessment of which items are strongest, which may be weaker, and whether you would recommend changing my proposed structure.
Thank you for your time and guidance.
Kind regards
Siddhesh