GTV Digital Technology Application Review for EP– MC + OC2 + OC3

Stage 1
1

Hi everyone,

Background: I’m a Senior Software Engineer with 5+ years of experience, primarily across frontend/backend (full-stack) engineering, digital products, analytics & experimentation and, more recently AI/MCP. I work as a Senior Software Engineer with Company A, a San Francisco-based technology company, through Company B (sub-contractor). I’m also building Shop Everywhere an MCP-powered conversational commerce product.

Criteria: MC + OC2 + OC3

MC evidence:

  • Published research paper on conversational commerce using MCP-enabled AI assistants — published in GJETA, with a registered DOI and public publication page.
  • Winner of “Most Innovative Use of AI” at an internal company hackathon — evidence of the project, award/recognition and my individual contribution.
  • Senior Software Engineer recognition/remuneration evidence — employment/contract evidence, salary documentation and market benchmarking demonstrating senior-level standing.

OC2 evidence:

  • Speaker at Cursor Community Lagos (May 2026) — delivered a technical talk on “Building an MCP Server and Integrating with ChatGPT”, with event photographs, presentation material and public/event evidence with over 600 participants.
  • Published technical article on Model Context Protocol (MCP) — Medium publication with analytics showing views/readership and engagement.
  • Technical thought leadership on LinkedIn around MCP/AI development — posts/articles with impressions, reposts, comments and engagement from software professionals.
  • Shop Everywhere Product — GitHub project demonstrating practical MCP implementation and contribution to the wider developer ecosystem. (Currently strengthening external usage/engagement evidence)

OC3 evidence:

  • Company A US/UK Domain Consolidation — significant engineering contribution to consolidating the UK platform into companya.com/uk, including architecture, localisation, SEO, analytics and infrastructure changes.
  • Optimizely experimentation work — implemented product experiments contributing to approximately 20% improvement in signup/retention-related outcomes, supported by experiment/dashboard evidence.
  • Single GTM + GA4 analytics architecture — consolidated separate US/UK analytics implementations, introduced locale tracking and improved consistency/accuracy of analytics across the platform.
  • Shopify/Elevar e-commerce analytics integration — technical contribution across checkout/purchase event tracking and ecommerce analytics.
  • Supporting evidence includes architecture diagrams, dashboards/metrics and confirmation of my individual contribution from senior leadership.

Three referees:

  • Head of Engineering — worked directly with me and can speak to my technical contributions and impact.
  • Senior technology leader from a previous organisation — direct knowledge of my engineering work and career progression.
  • Senior technology professional from a previous organisation — Also direct knowledge of my work and contributions over the required period.

I’d really appreciate feedback from anyone experienced with the Digital Technology Global Talent route, particularly around whether MC + OC2 + OC3 is the strongest combination for this profile and whether any of the evidence above should be moved between criteria.

Any feedback on the weaker parts would be greatly appreciated.

2

MC is the weakest part of this pack and needs rebuilding. Internal company awards are explicitly excluded by the Guide, so the hackathon piece won’t count no matter how it’s framed. A paper in a low-impact journal published close to application timing also risks triggering the Guide’s flag about evidence produced solely to support timing. Salary alone is also insufficient unless paired with clear impact beyond day-to-day work. Strong MC evidence usually looks like main-stage talks at sector-leading events, externally validated awards, or coverage in major trade publications.

OC2 has a structural issue. The Guide is explicit that self-published articles on LinkedIn or Medium are not considered sufficient evidence, which removes two of the four pieces immediately. Shop Everywhere is also risky here because OC2 requires voluntary activity not undertaken whilst representing a company or its products; a personal commercial product doesn’t fit. The Cursor Community talk can work if the 600 figure is attendees rather than registrations and the event is recognised as sector-leading. Stronger OC2 evidence usually means OSS contributions to established projects with public metrics, or structured mentorship through a recognised programme.

OC3 is the strongest of the three but leans heavily on internal engineering wins. Domain consolidation, GA4 setup, and Shopify integration read as doing the job well rather than contributing to the wider sector. The experimentation piece with measurable business impact carries the weight; the others need external framing, or an employer letter that attributes commercial outcomes to your individual work rather than the team’s. Being sub-contracted through Company B also complicates attribution, so the pack should clearly establish Company A as a product-led digital technology business.

2 Likes
3

Based on the information you have shared, your evidence aligns reasonably well with MC + OC2 + OC3, and the narrative is coherent. The key will be ensuring each criterion demonstrates a distinct aspect of your profile with minimal overlap.

Mandatory Criterion (MC)
Your research publication and AI hackathon award contribute to demonstrating recognition beyond your day-to-day role. However, an internal company award generally carries less weight than external recognition, so it is best used as supporting evidence rather than the cornerstone of MC. Likewise, remuneration evidence is useful to establish seniority but, on its own, is unlikely to satisfy MC. The research paper is probably your strongest MC evidence, provided it demonstrates meaningful recognition within the field rather than simply being published.

OC2 – Recognition for work outside your occupation
This appears to be your strongest optional criterion. The conference speaking engagement, technical article, LinkedIn thought leadership, and open-source MCP project all fit well under OC2, provided you can demonstrate genuine external impact. Metrics such as views, reads, comments, reposts, professional discussions, and audience reach will help establish that your contributions have been recognised by the wider technology community rather than simply published online. The Shop Everywhere GitHub project should ideally show external usage or developer adoption rather than just being publicly available. Evidence of community adoption—such as GitHub stars, forks, contributors, issues, external references, integrations, or user feedback—would significantly strengthen this evidence.

OC3 – Significant Technical Contribution
Your employer contributions fit OC3 well. The platform consolidation, experimentation work with measurable outcomes, analytics architecture, and e-commerce integrations collectively demonstrate technical ownership and business impact. Ensure the evidence clearly attributes these achievements to your individual contribution rather than the wider team. Quantified outcomes, architecture documentation, dashboards, and leadership letters will be important here.

Your proposed referees appear suitable. The most important consideration is not the organisation they represent, but whether they can provide detailed, evidence-based accounts of your achievements, technical capabilities, and broader contributions to the digital technology sector. Strong recommendation letters should contain specific examples of your impact rather than general endorsements.

So, it seems that MC + OC2 + OC3 is an appropriate combination for your profile. I wouldn’t recommend moving the OC3 employer evidence into MC, as it is much stronger when positioned as a significant technical contribution. Similarly, the community activities are better suited to OC2 than MC because they demonstrate recognition beyond your employment.

However, I would suggest you to focus on strengthening these areas:

  • Increase the amount of independent external recognition supporting MC, if possible.
  • Ensure your publication has evidence of credibility (DOI, indexing, readership, citations if available).
  • Demonstrate tangible external impact for Shop Everywhere (community adoption, GitHub activity, user feedback, or integrations).
  • Keep a clear separation between employer achievements (OC3) and community contributions (OC2) to avoid duplication.

Overall, your evidence appears strongest under OC2 and OC3. The Mandatory Criterion is likely to be the area that would benefit most from additional independent external recognition, as Tech Nation assessors typically look for evidence that extends beyond excellent performance within your employer.

4

Hi @Oluwatobi_Oyewole, as a Senior Software Engineer with 5+ years of experience, going by the information available in the Tech nation guidance, you’re eligible regardless of whether your company is technical or non‑technical. However, the indirect work relationship, working with a San Francisco‑based tech company through a contractor becomes tricky if you can’t show direct work with the company. Your Shop Everywhere product is fine assuming you’re the founder.

For MC, research can work for OC4 as a contribution to the sector through research, but it will be difficult to show recognition here in MC. Were you recognised for writing the paper? Did you receive a credible award, or did your research uncover something that solved a problem and was recognised, mentioned, or featured in popular media? Cited and referenced by reputable researchers, adopted in the industry by reputable companies as a basis for their solutions. These are the recognition elements, not just writing and publishing a paper. Winning “Most Innovative Use of AI” is a role‑based award, what exactly did you do with AI that was recognised and led to the award? Also, this is an internal company award, and may be dismissed as not externally validated or sector relevant. Salary, regardless of the amount from is not sufficient. Your overall narrative still needs to show how you have substantially contributed and advanced the sector.

On OC2, for Cursor Community Lagos where you invited as a keynote or domain expert to speak, did you speak on the main stage? This can be okay if you can clearly show it alongside the other evidence you listed. Medium is not editorially reviewed or fact checked, and it’s usually dismissed. LinkedIn posts fall into the same category, they’re not editorially reviewed, and Tech Nation doesn’t accept posts from open publishing platforms. Shop Everywhere, as I understand, is not free to use or open source, so whatever you did there won’t show contribution outside paid work that has advanced the sector.

For OC3, significant engineering contribution to consolidating the UK platform into companya.com/uk looks okay, but what evidence are you presenting? Your OC3 listings read more like CV job descriptions, you need to be clear about the evidence you’re submitting to show how you contributed significantly to a product led digital technology company.

To be honest, you have some good evidence, also some of your evidence does not align well or are not acceptable evidence going by Tech Nation’s criteria. I’d suggest reading through this platform, especially applicants endorsed in your discipline, to see the type of evidence they submitted to have an idea. Then, the Tech Nation guidance again can be helpful.

All the best.

5

One thing to add on the Company A/Company B setup that hasn’t been raised. Sub-contractor arrangements are workable, but the evidence has to clearly establish who owns the work product. When the assessor reads Senior Software Engineer at Company A via Company B, they need to see that the engineering contributions belong to you personally and that Company A is a product-led digital technology business in the Tech Nation definition. An employer letter from Company A itself (not Company B) attributing the domain consolidation, experimentation work, and analytics architecture to you individually is the single most useful piece to add.

Zooming out on OC3: internal engineering wins read stronger when the impact is quantified and attributed to you specifically. The 20% signup and retention improvement is the piece carrying real weight because it names a business outcome. The domain consolidation and GA4 setup are technical delivery pieces that any senior engineer could plausibly own. If Company A can attest that revenue or retention outcomes downstream of your work moved in a specific direction, that shifts OC3 from doing the job well to significantly contributing to a product-led company. Without that attribution, the criterion leans on infrastructure changes and the assessor is left to infer impact.