Help needed in arranging documents, if sufficient for submission

Stage 1
1

Hi, everyone!

Please, I am seeking guidance on organising my documents as I apply for the “Potential Leader for Digital Technology” role in the AI sector. I am a tech founder and chief technology officer with two years of experience being a tech founder. I have a decade of freelancing in non-tech organisations. My expertise spans data analysis, cybersecurity, and most recently, AI. I have trained over 200 educators, journalists, and government agencies in both in-person and online settings on the use of various AI tools. I am seeking guidance on organising my documents as I apply for the “Potential Leader for Digital Technology” role in the AI sector.

Can you help me check if these are also sufficient for submission?

Recommendation letters:

  1. LOR1: Snr. staff in an a open-source and AI Company that builds tools for organisation. This person knows me since 2021. This person has AI and machine learning background. Spoke about my AI knowledge.
  2. LOR2: Founder of a new digital company, AI and mental health company. someone that knows me since 2023 and has also mentored me. I have invited this person to join my tech training section for educators, journalists on AI technology. This person has more than 5years experience in IT industry. Spoke about my cybersecurity knowledge
  3. LOR3: Co-founder of a Digital Tech company that uses AI to help organisations engage with audience. This person knows me since 2024 and also spoke about my AI knowledge(Please, Do you think this person is qualified)

Additionally, I am talking to a non-profit founder that trains people in coding about the letter but am waiting for a response to replace LOR3 and move current LO3 into the general letter support. What would you advise me on this, please?

  • MC:

  1. Evidence showing the AI-powered app I built which was openly launched in May 2025 but had been used internally before bringing it to the public. This app helps in fast transcription, editing, and data analysis, and it’s being used by educators for student marking, newsrooms and journalists, and so many others using audio and writing.

  2. Metrics of users showing over nearly active users of 2k and 19k usages from the 2k users (this may increase during the period I will submit my application).

  3. Evidence and Letter from my senior staff in the company I founded, mentioning how I have built in-house apps such as receipt and expenses trackers and then chatbots like that of Gemini and ChatGPT that we use internally for brainstorming and helping reduce time spent to carry out the company’s activities. This letter is backed with screenshots of the internal apps and YouTube unlisted video evidence of how this app works since it is internal and confidential.

  • OC1:

  1. Letter reference as evidence from a top global company officer who has used my AI-powered app to reduce the 70 times spent in analysis and translating documents. This person has followed my work and has mentored me since 2020 to date. He spoke about the impact of my app in his organisation, which he used it for highly confidential work and got better and faster results from the app

  2. In-person and online training from government agencies, journalists and university departments on using AI technology to enhance their work and reduce time spent analysing students work.

  3. A letter of reference from one of my AI training attendees who is a senior and top management officer (second in charge) at the university that states how he knows me from being a former student from 2012 to 2017 to now being an AI trainer. He mentioned how my training has helped the school create AI policy, and now he has started to use the app I built to enhance and fasten his workload when grading students.

  4. Evidence of a company founder who has known me since 2022, talking about how my skills in AI and cybersecurity has helped his organisation to easily patch the company website that was exposed to attack. He also mentioned how my AI training has helped one of his staff to quickly and easily use AI to enhance his work. This is a non-tech company, but they have a small tech website where their country residents use it for analysis and understanding government procurement and bidding, which is where I conducted my risk analysis using various tools to detect loopholes in the app.

  • OC2:

  1. Evidence of a screenshot of another AI-powered app I built that uses open-source data to detect ingredients used in producing food, whether it is banned in three targeted countries or not, and what nutritional value the ingredients used have for humans if consumed. This app is live and can be used by anyone, but it is in beta phase and not being used more because we are still testing it.

  2. Interview by prominent research organisation on my work on using AI in supporting a small newsroom to analyse more than 3000 pages of documents within a short time

  3. Speaking in Women in Tech event with a small gathering of 20 people and teaching people how to build AI tools using Google no-code or low-code products.

  4. Two AI research papers I wrote. In one, I am the lead author, while in the other, I am the co-author.

I am currently in touch with a University professor in the AI, who knows my work to see if he can agree to recommend me and talk about my research. I have known him since June 2024 and has been one of his organisation’s fellows selected. I intend to add this as a support letter to my OC2 when I speak about my research because my research has only be cited by two persons, which is not enough but the professor recommendation will help alot

Can you help me check if these are also sufficient for submission?

Thanks alot, and I look forward to your help. Please, feel free to tell me where to push any I didn’t arrange them well.

1 Like
2

Hi,

Your Mandatory and OC1 need review in my opinion, mandatory, to show national or international recognition, OC1 are mostly letters and the training course might fall under OC2. Go through the guide , and see if you can present other evidences, dont depend on letters only, thats quite risky!

Best of Luck!

3

You are well-suited for the Promise route, givеn your founder status, real AI products, and сlear ea‍rly-career stage. However, your evidenсe is poorly organized, and Recommendation Lettеr #3 violates ‍Guideline A5, as the writer has knоwn you for less than a year, which could jeopаrdize your applicat‍ion. Replace it with a senіor figure who has known you for over a year; thе AI professor is ideal if‍ they meet this requіrement. The nonprofit founder is only suitablе if they are a senior leader at a‍ legitimate рroduct-led tech organization. Reorganize your рroof so that each item aligns with what ‍the crіterion actually measures: MC should demonstratе external recognition, such as the research or‍gаnization interview and your Women in Tech talk; ΟC1 (Innovation) should cover your AI transcriрtio‍n app, internal tools, food-ingredient app, аnd combined research papers; OC3 (Impact) should usе us‍er metrics and strong letters evidencing cоmmercial, public-sector, and cybersecurity imрact.

Next ‍steps: immediately correct the LoR, аdopt the MC/OC1/OC3 structure, and ensure everуthing is easily ‍verifiable with public links, hеaded letters, and screenshots. Write a personаl statement that conne‍cts innovation (OC1) and іmpact (OC3) to your recognition as an emerging lеader (MC). Include a one-‍page evidence index tо assist assessors. With these revisions, you wіll present a persuasive case fo‍r Exceptional Рromise.

Good luck!

4

Thank you very much for your help @plusminushalf and @Maya. I have also arranged the OC1 AND OC2 after the question. Here are a few questions to help me better rearrange my documents as suggestions. I just need a clarification to your response.

  1. I will replace the letter, but before that, I just want to state that the LO3 person has known me since January 2024, and we are now in July 2025. Won’t this still count?

  2. The external interview was not about my product; the interview was done before the product was launched. Rather, it was focused on my skills to use AI (ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot) to analyse more than 3000 pages of documents for investigative stories within a short time. They interviewed me on how I was able to achieve this with the small newsroom I lead within a short time. Will this still count?

  3. The women in the tech talk were just a few people, not more than 20, in a room on using Google low-code or no-code tools to build scalable products. Will this also count since it’s a small number of people?

Here’s my rearrangement for OC1 and OC2 and the suggestion.

OC1

  1. Evidence of AI-powered transcription app
  2. Evidence of Food AI app
  3. Internal tools
  4. Combined research paper
  5. Letter from my organisation’s top management confirming that I built the internal and external apps for the company

OC2.Impact letters from

  1. Metrics of users of my app

  2. Lecturers that app and training him to make policy and started using the app in lecturers

  3. Senior leader in an organisation that uses my transcription app for fast analysis

  4. Non-profit founder that i helped them identify cyberattack due to the loopholes.

  5. Finally, my personal statement that speaks about my work in OC1 and OC2. In this aspect, should I indicate that I am a potential leader, or should I not mention it and go straight to talk about my work?

Also, please, where should I fix my company’s registration document? Would it be in MC, OC1 or OC2?

5

“The LO3 person has known me since January 2024, and we are now in July 2025. Won’t this still count?”

Yes, you are correct. This will count. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

“The external interview was not about my product… it was focused on my skills to use AI… Will this still count?”

Thank you for the clarification. The fact that the interview was about your skills and methodology in using AI to solve a complex data analysis problem, rather than your specific product, makes it even stronger evidence for the Mandatory Criterion.

For speaking engagements to be considered sufficient evidence, they must be at “widely regarded as sector-leading events for your field with at least 100 attendees.” Therefore, a talk to a small group of 20 people, while a positive activity, will not count towards meeting the criteria.

Assessment of Your Rearranged Optional Criteria: The core problem is that you are mixing evidence for multiple different criteria under one heading and misinterpreting the purpose of each criterion.

  • Your Proposed OC2: You have defined this as “Impact letters”. The guide’s definition for OC2 is completely different: “work outside of my immediate occupation that contributed to the advancement of the digital technology sector.” This refers to non-paid, voluntary work like mentoring or open-source contributions. The evidence you listed (app metrics, letters about your app’s impact) relates to the commercial or technical impact of your main job, which is evidence for OC3 (Significant Contribution), not OC2.

If I’ve mixed up any documents or mis­interpreted the intent, please let me know.

Personal Statement Tone: Do not explicitly state “I am a potential leader.” Your task is to demonstrate this, not declare it. The Personal Statement must answer the questions in the guide, primarily: “How will the UK digital technology sector benefit from your work?”. Focus on showing by describing your past achievements.

The company registration document is considered very low-value evidence. The guide states, “financial information documents alone (such as company accounts or business incorporation) are insufficient”. It proves your company exists, but it says nothing about your talent or promise. I would personally not use this as one of your 10 evidences.

6

@plusminushalf I am so excited to hear your review. It has given me a clearer picture of the entire situation. Thanks.

For speaking engagements to be considered sufficient evidence, they must be at “widely regarded as sector-leading events for your field with at least 100 attendees.” Therefore, a talk to a small group of 20 people, while a positive activity, will not count towards meeting the criteria.

Talking about the speaking engagement that has a small number, which of my pieces of evidence should I use to replace it? see all my listed documents below

Your Proposed OC2: You have defined this as “Impact letters”. The guide’s definition for OC2 is completely different: “work outside of my immediate occupation that contributed to the advancement of the digital technology sector.” This refers to non-paid, voluntary work like mentoring or open-source contributions. The evidence you listed (app metrics, letters about your app’s impact) relates to the commercial or technical impact of your main job, which is evidence for OC3 (Significant Contribution), not OC2.

I forgot to mention that my app was given for free for the first two months, and we had over 3000 usages across the platform from over 1000 users, and we recently initiated a paid version, but there is still a free version. Does this still make any meaning for OC2 or does it still fall in OC3?

Finally, here’s my updated rearrangement of my documents:
Recommendation letters:

  1. LOR1: Snr. staff in an open-source and AI company that builds tools for organisations. This person has known me since 2021. This person has an AI and machine learning background. Spoke about my AI knowledge.
  2. LOR2: Founder of a new digital company, AI and mental health company. someone that knows me since 2023 and has also mentored me. I have invited this person to join my tech training section for educators and journalists on AI technology. This person has more than 5years experience in the IT industry. Spoke about my cybersecurity knowledge
  3. LOR3: Co-founder of a digital tech company that uses AI to help organisations engage with audiences. This person has knows me since January 2024 and also spoke about my AI knowledge

*** MC:**

  1. Interview done by a prominent, reputable, and global research media.
  2. Photo evidence of free training done for over 100 professionals outside my organisation, both in person and online. The in-person training – I was not physically present because it was done outside the country I was based in, but I was the initiator through the organisation I founded, and also joined and trained them live while my team members were present and took the remaining in-person sessions. I have photos and evidence of this training.

Would these be enough?

OC1

  1. Evidence of AI-powered transcription app
  2. Evidence of Food AI app
  3. Internal tools
  4. Letter from my organisation’s top management confirming that I built the internal and external apps for the company.

(Please should that I took a screenshot of the app and also add the url to the screenshot for easy access).

OC2:
I am now a bit confused about which to add here. Would these below work well

  1. Published two peer-reviewed research but only has two citations.
  2. A letter from a university professor talking about this research above (Must this be senior lecturer from UK or anywhere in the world)

Would these work well
OC3.

  1. Metrics of users of my app
  2. Lecturers that uses my app and my attended my training have make policy on AI and started using the app in lectures
  3. Senior leader in an organisation that uses my transcription app for fast analysis for free without payment
  4. Non-profit founder that I helped to identify a cyberattack due to the loopholes.

Thank you for your detailed explanation, and feel free to suggest the best way to rearrange it because so far, these are all the documents I have except from the university professor whom I haven’t reached out to.

7

Thank you for the detailed update.

Talking about the speaking engagement that has a small number, which of my pieces of evidence should I use to replace it? see all my listed documents below

You are correct to quote the guide regarding high-profile conferences. You may still choose this to be part of OC2 and not as Mandatory as a supporting document but not primary evidence of being a recognised leader.

I forgot to mention that my app was given for free for the first two months…

  • No, this does not count for OC2. This is a common point of confusion.
  • OC2 is for activities like mentoring, running meet-ups, or contributing to open-source projects, actions that are separate from your main commercial enterprise. Offering a product for free (a “freemium” model) is a commercial or product strategy designed to acquire users. The impact of those free users is excellent evidence for OC3 (Impact), but it is not a “voluntary contribution” in the way Tech Nation defines it.

Critique of Your Updated Document Rearrangement

  • Your LOR list is compliant. However, my advice remains that replacing LOR 3 with a non-profit founder or a senior academic would present a more diverse and impactful profile. If you proceed with your current list, it is acceptable.
  • Your MC two pieces of evidence are strong and sufficient for the Mandatory Criterion.
  • Now, I strongly recommend you choose two of OC1, OC2 & OC3 instead of all of them.

OC1 - looks good though the definition of innovation is vague and may be dependent on the perspective of the reviewer. Most of these are also valid pointers for OC3 so if you choose to pick that you can easily move these there. This criterion has a very high bar. It requires you to prove that you have created something genuinely new , a “new digital field or concept.” The guide uses “granted patents” as a prime example.

OC2 - Show you contribute to the sector outside of your main job.

  • Your two peer-reviewed research papers
  • Supporting Academic Letter
  • [Added] Your evidence from the Women in Tech talk where you taught people to build AI tools

To answer your question: No, the professor does not need to be from the UK. An established academic expert from any reputable university worldwide is perfectly acceptable.

OC3 - Show your main work has had a significant technical or commercial impact.

  • Evidence of AI-powered transcription app
  • Metrics of users of your app
  • The letter from the senior leader whose organisation used your app for fast analysis. (I would not highlight free since the idea is to show impact the tool had not how price effective it was)
  • The letter from the university lecturer confirming your training helped them create AI policy and that they use your app in their work

You have all the necessary components for a very strong Exceptional Promise application. The key is this final, clear organisation that aligns directly with the official guidelines.

I wish you the very best.

1 Like
8

Thank you, @plusminushalf, for your detailed explanation and suggestion of rearrangement. Apologies for responding late; I had an emergency that took me to low-internet areas, and I didn’t go with my laptop. I am back now.

I have now collected a letter of reference from the senior academic (professor) who spoke about my AI-powered skills and also endorsed one of my research projects that focus on his area and AI. But the letter is only two pages but detailed. Is this an issue since it’s not up to 3 pages?

Again my question here is that:

  1. Since you mentioned that I should replace one LO3 with a non-profit or senior academic. Would using the professor’s letter that spoke briefly about my tech skills and wrote a detailed explanation and endorsement of one of my research works for this?
  2. Meanwhile for the LO, I was confusing thinking only senior staff/founders in product-led organisations are accepted and not academics. Correct me if I am wrong.

Although I am planning to also talk to another senior staff member from a big and globally known tech organisation to ask for a letter, I am hoping to do it this afternoon to add to replacing the last LO3 person.
3. Since you said I should add my two peer research papers, should I join them as one document during the arrangement, including the academic letter, or just separately and back it up with the academic letter separately?

  1. Let’s assume I won’t be using the academic letter for my LO3 but to back up my OC2. Will this still have weight since he only spoke about one of my research and the two submitted and only on two pages and not up to three pages?

I understand we can’t repeat letters or evidence; I am hoping to get another letter from another senior academic to endorse my research if I am to use the academic letter in my LO3. Hopefully, he agrees to endorse both.

Finally, I am hoping to submit my application this August, but I have a tech event that I am organising which was funded by a university to bring professionals in tech, CSOs, and researchers to talk about AI and discuss issues. But this is a small group of 30 people, and the event will be in early September, while my current visa ends in early December. Do you think I should wait for this event to add it as part of my evidence, or should I go ahead and submit the application since it’s a small number and also not focus more on technical usage but just issues and benefits with AI?

Thanks alot for your help.

9

Looking at your evidence portfolio, you have a solid foundation for an Exceptional Promise application but need some strategic reorganization to align with Tech Nation’s criteria. I’ve seen many similar cases where strong technical work gets overlooked due to poor evidence structure.

Your mandatory criteria needs strengthening beyond just letters of reference. The interview with the research organization about your AI document analysis skills is excellent - this shows external recognition of your expertise. However, replace the small Women in Tech talk with stronger evidence like published articles or media coverage of your work. I’ve seen applications succeed with fewer speaking events but stronger written recognition.

Focus on OC1 (Innovation) and OC3 (Impact) rather than trying to cover all criteria. Your AI transcription app with 2k users and food ingredient detection tool demonstrate clear innovation for OC1. For OC3, the university lecturer implementing AI policy based on your training and the organization using your app for fast analysis show real commercial impact. Keep evidence focused and measurable - I’ve noticed applications with scattered evidence often get rejected even with good underlying achievements.

2 Likes
10

Thanks @Akash_Joshi I appreciate it. I will now rearrange my document as mentioned.

But there is just one question I think you missed to respond to.

  1. For the LOR, do they also accept letters from senior academics (professors), or must it be a product-led organisation?

Finally, you had earlier mentioned that I create, like, a one-page guide for the reviewers. Please, can you explain how this would look and at what point I should present it?

1 Like
11

do they also accept letters from senior academics (professors), or must it be a product-led organisation

LoRs from industry people are stronger than those from academics.

For the one-page guide, that would be the self-documentation part at the start of each of your documents.

2 Likes
12

Thanks a lot for the explanation.