My plan is not to start producing the final evidence documents yet. I first want to confirm that this overall MC + OC2 + OC3 direction is sensible, then I will focus on obtaining the strongest supporting evidence for each criterion.
Would you recommend proceeding with this structure? Is there anything here that is still incorrectly categorised or that you would replace before I start gathering the final evidence?
Thank you again for the guidance.
@deezah I think you’re approaching this from the wrong direction.
Your narrative, the work you’ve done, and the impact you’ve made within the sector over the last five years should naturally point to the criteria that best fit your profile. It shouldn’t be a case of deciding on the criteria first and then looking for evidence to fill the gaps. That approach will be counterproductive.
Also, from my understanding, Moniepoint is primarily a fintech company focused on solving financial challenges through technology, offering services such as instant debit cards, seamless transfers, and other banking solutions. While it is a technology driven business, it is not naturally a product led company in the context typically required for OC3. OC3 is specifically focused on demonstrating your contribution within a product led company. Also, Down4 appears to be a social activity app where people in London find and join local activities. These is also not a product led company.
I would suggest starting with a narrative check first. From there, map out your existing evidence alongside any potential evidence you can realistically obtain. Once you do that, the most suitable criteria will become much clearer.
In my view, that’s a more strategic and evidence driven approach than selecting criteria upfront and then trying to make the evidence fit.
You may find this my article helpful. reason 1 to be precise
Hope this helps. All the best!