Feedback on my Global Talent Visa evidence set (Promise – Digital Technology)

Stage 1
1

Hi everyone,

I’m the founder of an EdTech startup working at the intersection of AI, education, and mental health. I’m preparing my Global Talent Visa (Promise – Digital Technology) application and would love your advice on my evidence set.

Mandatory Evidence

Media coverage in a Latin-American tech outlet (article highlighting international recognition and pilots).

QS Reimagine Education Bronze Award (Europe, 2024).

3 recommendation letters: from a senior executive at a global listed tech company(Globant), an EdTech founder/investor with successful exits, and a social entrepreneur who has scaled education platforms internationally.

Optional Criteria
OC1 – Innovation

Technical architecture & product innovation (GDPR-compliant, ML platform).

Research collaboration with a European university on AI/HCI (600+ postgraduate hours).

OC2 – Recognition

Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs (European Commission): selective programme that funded my entrepreneurial exchange in New York, where I worked with an experienced founder to develop skills in scaling ventures and internationalisation.

Dalai Lama Fellowship (2025): global fellowship recognising young leaders who combine social innovation with compassion-driven projects. I was selected for my project applying technology to neurodiversity support in schools.

QS Showcase Presentation (invited speaker at international London conference).

OC3 – Commercial/Impact

Pilot agreements from past work in Colombia and planned pilots in three schools in the UK.

Startup competitions (finalist/semifinalist in Milken–Penn, mSchools, Tools, Rarefounders).

My questions:

Is it good enough as it is, or would you recommend complementing it with something else?

Should I focus mainly on OC1 and OC2 and move some of the OC3 evidence there, or keep the spread across all three?

Thanks a lot for your feedback!

2

HI @Alejandro

I think you little bit mixing OC2 with Mandatory (Which is Recognition). From your current list of evidences, I assume you are Applying for Mandatory (Recognition) , OC1 & OC3.

If that is true, then move the evidences from OC2, to Mandatory and re-arrange the documents.

As per Tech Nation Guide, OC2 is ‘‘How do I demonstrate that I have been recognised for my work outside of my immediate occupation that contributed to the advancement of the digital technology sector?’’, Examples of this are mostly for volunteering, contributing in forums & speaking in conferences, offering mentorships, and structured programs which i do not think this is what your aiming to evidence.

Also, for your Innovation, avoid depending completely on self-authored or self-claims. I understand you are the founder, however, it is still important to validate your work with third party. Maybe a letter from an expert, blog, interview, etc.

1 Like
3

Hi Maya — thanks a lot for the detailed pointers.

Quick clarification on why I’d originally parked two items under OC2 (Recognition outside work):

Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs (EYE): I treated this as outside my core job because it was essentially a “volunteer-style” stint where I shadowed and supported another EdTech founder — contributing but not in my own venture’s capacity.

Dalai Lama Fellowship: Also outside my day-to-day. It’s a leadership/mentorship programme where I’m mentored and also provide guidance to university students interested in social entrepreneurship. While the programme isn’t strictly “digital tech,” my selection hinged on using technology to automate traditionally manual school workflows for social impact.

With that framing, would you still recommend moving these to Mandatory (Recognition) rather than keeping them in OC2? I’m happy to reorganise; just want to place them where an assessor would most naturally expect them.

On your point about avoiding purely self-authored innovation claims: I agree. I tried to balance this with a university collaboration in AI/HCI (600+ postgraduate hours). Do you think that collaboration — properly evidenced — is sufficient third-party validation for OC1 (Innovation), or would you still advise getting an additional independent letter of recommendation specifically speaking to the novelty and impact of the tech? I do have room for one extra evidence piece and want to use it wisely.

Really appreciate your guidance!

1 Like
4

Hi @Alejandro

Thanks for your clarification that makes sense. However, you cant apply for 3 optional criteria, should be 2 only, so if you want to keep OC2 , then you will either remove the Oc1 (innovation) or OC3 (The Impact), it would be challenging for me to decide, it depends on your evidences, arrangements, and presentation. Which one you feel is stronger position with validation of third party, and providing metrics and detailed description. I see your mandatory criteria can be structured quite well, as your recognition as promise is obvious especially if you present it well. I also prefer to have min 3 evidences for each criteria , so your current mandatory, needs additional one, to make it stronger. Rearrange and share your updated list.

best of luck!

2 Likes
5

Thanks, @Maya, super helpful. I’ll move the startup competitions into Mandatory Evidence (as third-party recognition) and shift the pilot agreements into OC1 (Innovation) to evidence real-world deployment.

Updated outline (lean, two optionals):

Mandatory: Press coverage, QS Reimagine Bronze (Europe 2024), 3 recommendation letters, competitions (Milken–Penn, Tools, etc.)

OC1 – Innovation: Technical architecture (GDPR-compliant ML), European university AI/HCI research, pilot agreements/results

OC2 – Recognition: Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs (European Commission), Dalai Lama Fellowship, QS Showcase (invited speaker)

Thanks again!

6

@Francisca_Chiedu @Akash_Joshi
Hi guys, I’d appreciate your feedback if there’s anything that hasn’t already been covered by May’s very helpful feedback :grin:

7

Hi @Alejandro

Your application structure needs rejigging and elaboration.

In MC, as a founder, you should also add founder equity shareholding, investment docs that show investment in POC, company registration and financial audit docs. Media coverage is good! Is the award by a leading recognized body?

In OC1, you need to demonstrate a. What was innovative b. Your individual contribution to that innovation c. Impact of the innovation/market traction/success. These need to be backed by third party evidences like media coverage, pictures, proof of product in market and letters.

Your OC2 is weak. Erasmus fellowship doesn’t indicate advancement to sector. Mentorship is considered only if it’s part of a structured mentorship program. The speaking invite is good if it was a large tech event. I would move all these to MC instead of attempting OC2 where these evidences won’t meet the bar.

In OC3, forecasted or planned pilots don’t work. A successful pilot leading to a commercial contract and revenue will work instead. Startup competitions are also not valid in this criteria. You need to demonstrate your contribution to core company metric increase like revenue increase, client increase, etc. again this should be supported by external proofs like pictures, letters. Please use couple of examples from your startup where you can display commercial impact in quantified value along with letters from clients who have benefitted.

Your current outline needs massive rework and better aligned evidences tied together to create a strong and valid application,

1 Like
8

Your mandatory evidence is reasonable but needs expansion. The QS Bronze Award is good recognition, but you need at least one more strong piece of mandatory evidence. Move your startup competition results here - but only if they had rigorous selection processes and small winner pools. I’ve seen applications rejected when assessors noted “very large number of other award winners at the same time,” so ensure your competitions were truly selective.

For OC1 Innovation, avoid relying heavily on self-authored technical documentation. Third-party validation is now essential - assessors specifically state they need external evidence from non-colleagues to corroborate your claims. Your university collaboration sounds promising, but get a formal letter from the research supervisor detailing your specific innovative contributions and their broader impact. You also need strong evidences of innovation - for eg, a granted patent.

Skip OC2 entirely and focus on OC1 and OC3 instead. Your Erasmus fellowship and Dalai Lama recognition don’t clearly demonstrate advancement to the digital technology sector specifically. Recent rejection patterns show these types of general leadership programs rarely meet the “outside occupation contribution” bar. Your speaking engagement at QS might work if it was a major international tech event, but otherwise move it to mandatory evidence.

For OC3 Commercial Impact, you need concrete evidence of revenue generation or measurable business outcomes. Forecasted pilots and startup competitions don’t qualify here - assessors want proof of actual commercial success that you personally drove. If your startup has generated revenue, secured paying customers, or achieved specific growth metrics through your individual contributions, document those with external verification like client testimonials or financial statements.

2 Likes
9

Thanks for all of your feedback!