Help Review Recommendation Letter Profiles

Stage 1
1

For my Global Talent Visa application, I’ve selected six potential recommenders for my application. Would value your views on whether these profiles meet Tech Nation’s expectations for recommenders

  1. Tech CEO, multi-award-winning founder, and patent holder who has raised over $1 billion across ventures he’s been involved with. He’s also been my tech advisor since 2023, after I relocated to the UK. We’ve worked closely together since then, holding regular strategic sessions, reviewing technical documentation, and shaping the direction of my product. His letter will focus on my innovation in cybersecurity, grants raised, the commercial potential of my product, my leadership as a founder, and how I’ve navigated technical decision-making and challenges in building a product-led company (USA)
  2. Tech CEO, multi-award-winning founder, and Global Talent Visa recipient. We met in 2023 as fellow Innovator Visa holders and participated in the same UK-based cybersecurity accelerator for six months. Our professional relationship has continued beyond the programme, he’s remained involved in my journey and is familiar with the growth of my startup. His letter will focus on my ability to build and lead a product-led digital business in the UK, my contributions to the next generation as a tech mentor, recognition within the ecosystem through awards and participation in top accelerators etc (UK)
  3. Assistant Professor of Cybersecurity and Information Systems at a U.S. university. We’ve known each other since our time as international students, 2019. While we haven’t worked together professionally, he has followed my work closely, especially during my time as a fraud investigator at the university’s cybersecurity research lab. His letter will focus on my work investigating cybercrime, the impact of my contributions at the lab (which involved collaborations with tech companies and law enforcement), and how that experience shaped my evolution into a cybersecurity innovator. For clarity, I did not include this lab work in my submitted evidence, because I wasn’t sure if a research lab would qualify as product-led under Tech Nation’s criteria. Although we developed proprietary tools and worked with large tech companies, I wasn’t sure it would be accepted, so I excluded it entirely from my MC, OC1, or OC2 documentation. Also, because I went with OC1, and focused on my startup’s innovation for this criteria, and for OC2, focused on impact outside of day to day work, and for MC, focused on two national grants received and other awards in the industry. My question is: can a recommender refer to contributions that aren’t mentioned in my evidence, if they reflect the context in which they know my work and speak to my progression into tech innovation? (USA)
  4. Former line manager from my last role before I became a founder. They supervised my work directly and can speak in detail about it. The challenge is that they are not C-suite and no longer work at the company, so I wouldn’t be able to get the letter on company letterhead. I know Tech Nation asks for established experts, and ideally letters from senior figures, so my question is: would a strong, detailed letter from a non-C-suite former line manager still hold weight, especially if they had direct oversight of my work? Or would it weaken the application? I’ve also reached out to a senior leader (VP-level) who was in charge of my wider team at the time, but we haven’t been in contact since I left, and he too has since left the company. I’m not sure if or when I’ll hear back. Would really appreciate insight on whether it’s worth proceeding with the former manager if the VP doesn’t come through, or if it’s better to leave out both entirely (USA)
  5. PhD-level cybercrime researcher with over 85 citations. We’ve worked together over the past year on two cybercrime research papers, both of which have been submitted to peer-reviewed journals and are currently under review. We’ve collaborated on methodology, data analysis, and overall research framing. Would a researcher qualify as a recommender under Tech Nation? (Poland)
  6. HealthTech CEO, multi-award-winning founder, and Design innovation expert. She has raised over £100K in funding and previously held a Chief Product Officer role at a healthtech startup in Africa. We’ve worked together closely through my female tech founders’ community, almost like co-founders (400+ members across the UK) since 2024. Our co-led advocacy with other female communities, led to £XM pounds going to women innovators by a UK national innovation agency. Additionally, she’s been working with me in an advisory capacity, specifically supporting product design, UX strategy, and innovation (UK)

Questions:

  • Do these profiles (1 to 6) feel strong and compliant with Tech Nation’s LOR guidelines? Which would you recommend?
  • Can I use 3 at all? Is there any risk in the third referee referencing impactful work that I haven’t formally submitted as part of my evidence?
  • Also, does the depth of engagement with the second recommender since 2023, through the accelerator and knowledge of my startup journey, meet the standard of knowing my work for 12 months or more?
  • For 4, would a letter from a non C-suite former line manager still hold weight, especially if they had direct oversight of my work?
  • For 4, I’ve reached out to a senior leader (VP-level) who was in charge of my wider team at the time, but we haven’t been in contact since I left, and he too has since left the company. I’m not sure if or when I’ll hear back. Is it worth proceeding with the former manager if the VP doesn’t come through, or is it better to leave out both entirely?
  • Out of curiosity: Can a letter from an accelerator work for an LOR

Thanks in advance for any insight @Francisca_Chiedu @deepak

2
  • Can I use 3 at all? Is there any risk in the third referee referencing impactful work that I haven’t formally submitted as part of my evidence?
    I have a question, where does the technation guide say the reference ( 3 RL ) letter has to talk about the evidences you submit as part of OC/MC?
3

Your selection of recommenders is strong and generally aligns with what I have seen in successful Global Talent applications. Tech Nation values letters from established leaders, especially those with direct knowledge of your work and impact. Profiles 1, 2, and 6 are particularly compelling due to their seniority, achievements, and ongoing engagement with you. The second recommender’s relationship since 2023 and shared accelerator experience is sufficient to meet the 12-month familiarity guideline, based on past applications I have reviewed.

For your third recommender, it is acceptable for them to reference impactful work not included in your evidence, as long as it is relevant to your journey and progression. I have seen applicants succeed when referees provided context beyond the submitted documents, especially if it highlights your growth and expertise. Just ensure the letter clearly explains the relationship and the significance of the work mentioned.

Regarding your fourth recommender, a non C-suite former line manager can still provide a valuable letter if they had direct oversight and can speak in detail about your contributions. However, Tech Nation prefers seniority, so if the VP is unavailable, you may still include the line manager but balance it with your other strong letters. Letters from accelerators can be used, but they are most effective when the author is a senior leader who can personally attest to your impact and skills.

4

Thank you so much, Akash. I’ll take your feedback into account. Im leaning more towards 1,2 and 6 for obvious reasons

5

I think 1,2 and 6 should be fine as long as they detail you achievements and not sound like they just ment you at an event or programme. Just meeting your recommender during an accelerator or bootcamp is not considered strong. Your line manager doesn’t work, the process doesn’t work as he doesn’t haveyour detailed work.