Hello,
For some projects I am putting under OC2 digital technologyi I am unable to provide any screenshot or evidence, but in reference letters, referee has a paragraph confirming and explaining that work. Can I refer this part of recommendation letter as an evidence? Is it enough on its own?
Thanks
@darkram Hope you’re doing well. Recommendation letters and reference letters serve very different purposes. A recommendation letter is written by an established expert who has known your work for at least 12 months and can speak about your contributions, impact, and innovation.
A reference letter, on the other hand, is meant to validate a specific piece of evidence. It does not stand alone to show how you meet any criteria, the supporting evidence itself must still be provided.
All the best.
No, that paragraph cannot carry the criterion on its own. The Guide is explicit that the use of letters of reference alone to show how you meet any of the criteria is not sufficient, and additional evidence should be provided. A referee confirming the work adds weight, but there has to be at least one standalone artefact sitting alongside it.
For genuinely confidential work, the real question is what non-confidential proof exists around it. Worth a sanity check on the category too: OC2 is meant for voluntary work beyond your day job, like open source or mentorship, which tends to be public by nature. If these are internal company projects, they may sit more naturally under OC3, where an architecture diagram or a public code contribution can stand as the additional evidence.
(post deleted by author)
Hi Raphael,
For a significant project I worked on a specıfıc company, how can I show an evidence, since everything is confidential?
The only evidence I have is, the recommendation letter and in one paragraph, this work is mentioned in detail. Cant it be an evidence?
What else can I put as an evidence for that project?
Thanks a lot for the response. For OC2, if I provide an architectural diagram for the projects that I developed, does it work by ıtself? Does the architectural diagram need any confirmation?
1- corresponding part in the reference letter describing the tool I worked on
2- architectural diagram of the tool
@darkram It’s possible to do voluntary work that is confidential under OC2. For instance, at a top‑tier accelerator that requires you to sign an NDA, or organisations like the United Nations, if you taught minors programming and they choose to keep their identities hidden. Some of these organisations may not allow individuals to disclose their in‑house activities. In that case, you can present the evidence you are permitted to show or that is not covered by the NDA, such as an invitation letter, appreciation certificate, or a picture of only yourself while blurring the faces of others, and clearly explaining your reason to Tech Nation. A reference letter from them that mentions this, along with your contributions, can also support your claims.
However, regardless of the criteria, a reference letter alone is not sufficient. You need to show the evidence that the letter is attesting to or validating.
An architecture diagram you have drawn yourself is self-authored documentation, so on its own it has the same weakness as a reference letter standing alone. It only reflects your own account of what you built, which is why an assessor cannot treat it as validation. It needs to sit alongside something they can check independently.
For a confidential project, that independent piece is whatever you are permitted to expose: a public code contribution, or a redacted design document that a named third party can corroborate. The diagram then illustrates the technical detail that the external artefact points to.
The category is still worth a second look. OC2 is for voluntary work beyond your paid role, so a tool you built for a company sits far more naturally under OC3, where a technical artefact paired with a commercial or usage outcome is the expected shape.