Looking for feedback, Exceptional Promise as a product/UX designer

Stage 1: Tech Nation Endorsement
1

I am applying under Digital Technology – Exceptional Promise and would appreciate feedback on how strong my current evidence is, particularly for OC1 / OC3.

Background

  • My background is a bit mix and on and off, I worked in tech startup as product manager 10 years ago, then moved country and had to start over again

  • Based in UK

  • Currently building my own mobile product

  • I have a mixed background across product research, UX and software engineering.

  • My current role is business development for a non tech company (due to visa reason, they are the only company would sponsor me)

Main Criteria

MC – Mandatory Criterion

1. Recommendation letter – Principal Engineer (who mentors me and knows me over 2 years)

  • Intended to cover my technical/product capabilities and my ability to work across design and software engineering.

2. Recommendation letter – University Lecturer

  • Recommendation letter from a university lecturer with relevant technology/software background.

  • Intended to cover my technical development, problem-solving ability and future potential.

3. Recommendation letter – Former CTO

  • Recommendation letter from my former CTO, who has known me for 10+ years.

  • We worked together during my earlier startup experience.

  • He can provide first-hand evidence of my contribution to product development and my longer-term development in digital technology

  • Letter includes the name of company, product, how and when we met, my position and my recent work and contribution in the uk

OC1 – Innovation

A. Independent mobile product

I’m a solo founder for a product (no company), independently researched, designed and developed a mobile app, live on iOS and Android.

Evidence available:

  • Figma design files and design history

  • GitHub repository and development history

  • User feedback and product reviews on social media

B. Earlier startup product experience

I worked at a startup and was involved in product research and product/function planning.

My contribution included:

  • User research/interviews

  • Identifying user needs

  • Planning product functions

  • Developing matching/product concepts

  • Iterating product features based on user behaviour

  • Contributing to product/content strategy

I do not have detailed product metrics from this period.

C. Third-party historical evidence (too old I’m not sure is this ok for OC)

  • An article from around 2017 covering the company and its product.

  • The article provides third-party media evidence of the product/company and its activity in the technology/startup sector.

  • The article is around 9 years old, so I understand it may be more useful as historical corroborating evidence rather than recent recognition.

D. supporting letter from tech leader that recognise my contribution

  • My ability to independently identify a problem, design a digital solution and take it through to a functioning product.

  • My development as a product builder working across UX, product and engineering.

  • Why this demonstrates potential to contribute to the UK digital technology sector.

OC3 – Recognition / Contribution Beyond My Occupation

A. Support work for a startup

github merge history

whatsapp chat history with the developer that says good words about my work

supporting letter from the developer I work with

B. volunteer full stack developer

I worked as a volunteer full stack developer for a charity organisation for about a year

  • GitHub merge history

  • supporting letter from the senior developer I worked with

  • I’m also asking supporting letter from the organisation but haven’t replied me yet

Other Recognition / Public Activity

Tech community

  • tech meetup presentation about my product (within 3 months), it’s too recent that I’m not sure should I add it to the evident list

Questions I would particularly appreciate feedback on

  1. Is my former CTO, who has known me for 10+ years, a strong choice for one of the three recommendation letters?

  2. Should I use the 2017 article as historical evidence for OC1, despite being outside the recent 5-year period?

  3. Would you structure my evidence differently between OC1 and OC3?

  4. Are there any obvious gaps in my current evidence that I should address or keep building?

2

@Ying_05 Hi Ying, thanks for sharing such a detailed overview. It’s clear you’ve invested considerable time in developing your portfolio and understanding the criteria.

A few observations from what you’ve shared:

Your former CTO may be a suitable recommender, provided he is an established expert in digital technology, has known your work for at least 12 months, and can speak specifically about your achievements and potential. His firsthand knowledge of your work could be valuable.

Your independently developed app is an interesting part of your portfolio. For OC1, I would distinguish between evidence of building the product and evidence of innovation. The Figma files, GitHub history and user feedback can help substantiate your work, but the nature of the innovation and its significance need to be clear.

For OC3, your voluntary development work is worth examining. The important distinction is whether the activity represents a contribution to the digital technology sector outside your occupation, rather than simply unpaid professional work. The context, your individual contribution and evidence of impact would matter here.

Regarding the 2017 article, I’d be cautious about relying on it as primary evidence for a recent achievement. It may provide useful background, but I would prioritise evidence that directly addresses the applicable criteria and timeframe.

One additional point: you mentioned three recommendation letters under MC. Just make sure you also have separate evidence demonstrating recognition as a potential leader. The letters are a distinct application requirement and don’t replace the mandatory-criterion evidence.

Overall, there are potentially useful elements here, but I wouldn’t give you a strong or weak verdict based on a forum summary alone. That would require examining the actual documents and the claims they support.

I’m the founder of FKGTV Consultancy. We work with applicants across the UK Global Talent routes, including Digital Technology, and offer professional eligibility and evidence assessments before applicants commit to submission.

If you’d like a more detailed, individual assessment of your application, you’re welcome to get in touch. We’d be happy to explain our assessment service and how we approach cases like yours.

Wishing you the best with your application!

3

Your former CTO could be a strong referee if they are recognised as an expert in digital technology and can give specific, first-hand examples from knowing your work over at least 12 months. Their title and long relationship alone do not establish that, and the letter should offer a distinct perspective from your other referees.

The current mobile product needs evidence of genuine innovation, not only proof that you designed and built it. For a founder, the Guide frames OC1 around innovation in a product-led business and points to a product in market with traction. It also allows employees to show work in a new digital field or concept. The old startup material needs careful treatment: the article may corroborate the history, but it cannot by itself establish a consistent, current track record.

Your voluntary charity work may fit OC2 if it was unpaid, outside your occupation and contributed to the digital technology sector. For OC3, show your personal work and its impact within a product-led digital technology company; GitHub history or a supportive letter alone may establish contribution without showing significance. Keep the two criteria distinct: OC1 is innovation, while OC3 is impact.

4

Thank you so much, this is really helpful. Based on your feedback, I’m now thinking of structuring my evidence as:

change OC3 to OC2 : my unpaid work as a volunteer full-stack developer for a charity, plus my work supporting another startup (both outside my current occupation).

Also I’ll try to find/gather more evidence of genuine innovation for OC1

One thing I’m still unsure about my case is the overall strength of my case. I have quite a non-linear career history: I worked in a tech startup around 10 years ago, then moved to the UK for master degree and had to restart my career, and my current sponsored job is in a non-tech company. My recent digital technology work has mainly been independent projects, volunteering and the app I built since last year.

Would you consider my current evidence too weak for Exceptional Promise, or is it potentially viable if I present the evidence and narrative more strongly? In particular what do you think is currently the biggest weakness/risk in my case: OC1 innovation, OC2 contribution, or the overall lack of recent industry recognition?

Thanks again for the guidance.

5

@Ying_05 I wouldn’t consider your non-linear career history a weakness on its own. For Exceptional Promise, what matters more is the strength of your recent work, the recognition you’ve received, and how convincingly your evidence demonstrates your potential in digital technology.

From what you’ve described, I see three areas worth examining.

For OC1, building an application is a good starting point, but you’ll need to demonstrate what makes it genuinely innovative, ideally with independent evidence supporting that claim.

OC2 could be a reasonable alternative if your voluntary work demonstrates significant technical contributions outside your normal occupation. The important part is showing your individual contribution and its impact, rather than simply proving that you volunteered.

My main concern would be the mandatory criterion, particularly whether you have enough independent recognition to demonstrate your potential as a future leader in digital technology. Strong optional criteria alone won’t compensate for weak evidence here.

I wouldn’t say your case is necessarily too weak, but I also wouldn’t assume that improving the narrative will solve everything. I’d focus on identifying which achievements can be independently verified and whether they collectively meet the criteria before deciding to submit.

6

The case may be viable, but a stronger narrative cannot make up for evidence that does not meet the criteria. The greatest risk is whether your evidence from the last five years demonstrates your potential to become a leading talent in digital technology.

Your career path itself is not decisive. Assess whether the recent evidence supports that potential, then use OC1 or OC2 only where the underlying work clearly meets the relevant criterion.

7

For the Mandatory Criterion, your mentor would not be considered a suitable referee. The university letter is also not particularly strong, so I’d recommend using people who know your professional work directly and are well established in the digital technology sector. Your former CTO sounds like the strongest of the three and I would retain that letter.

Also note that evidence outside the relevant five-year period are not acceptable. Reference letters alone are not sufficient, so you need to show what other independently verifiable, third-party evidence you have.

I also think your evidence list needs to be described more clearly. For OC1, what exactly is novel about your product? What differentiates it from existing solutions, and what traction or measurable impact does it have? Simply showing that you designed and built an app does not necessarily demonstrate innovation.

For OC3, the GitHub evidence is useful, but WhatsApp chats would not be acceptable as proof of impact. Try to show independently verifiable outcomes and metrics from the work you contributed to.

At the moment, the evidence is still a little sketchy. You need to demonstrate not just what you have done, but how this shows you are an emerging or recognised leader in the sector and provide measurable evidence of your impact.

8

Overall: Not strong enough yet for Exceptional Promise. MC relies only on letters no independent recognition. OC1 is weak. OC3 is misused (volunteer work is OC2, not OC3). You need to restructure and build more evidence.

MC: Three letters alone won’t work. You need external recognition: media features, awards, speaking at major conferences, significant open-source contributions. Former CTO is okay but not enough get independent senior experts who can attest to your exceptional talent.

OC1: Independent mobile product is your best shot, but user feedback on social media is weak. Need downloads, revenue, retention, press coverage, or awards. Earlier startup work is too old and lacks metrics. 2017 article don’t use, too old. Supporting letter is just another letter.

OC3: You’ve misunderstood it. OC3 is significant contribution to a digital tech business (employment). Your volunteer and support work belongs under OC2. Since your current role is non-tech, OC3 is not viable unless you have past employment impact. Consider dropping OC3.

OC2: Volunteer full-stack for charity and startup support could work, but it’s thin. Need stronger evidence: longer duration, bigger impact, more recognition.

Questions:

  1. Former CTO: okay but not strong enough alone.

  2. 2017 article: no, outside window.

  3. Restructure: use OC2 for volunteer/support work. Drop OC3 unless you have real employment impact. OC1 needs much more.

  4. Gaps: no external recognition, no metrics, no significant open-source, non-tech role. Build product traction, get media coverage, speak at major events, contribute to well-known projects.

Advice: Don’t submit yet. Spend 6–12 months building stronger evidence. Apply when you have real traction and independent recognition.

9

@Ying_05, trust you’re doing well.

Based on your recent role as a Business Development Manager in a non tech company, you may not be eligible. While business development is mentioned under the Mandatory Criteria as a way to demonstrate leadership, the role itself is not specifically listed as an eligible role. Even if one argues that it qualifies, it would still fall under a business function, and business applicants working in non technical companies are generally not considered eligible.

You may therefore need to apply as a founder through your mobile product company instead. Your 10 years of experience can definitely be helpful, but remember that Tech Nation will assess your achievements within the last five years. If there are any gaps in your profile, you could potentially use that as part of an argument for applying under Exceptional Promise.

Regarding your recommendation letters, I would advise against mentioning that any of the authors are your mentors. Doing so may create the impression that there is a personal relationship beyond a professional one, which could raise concerns about bias in their assessment of you.

Also, being a university lecturer does not automatically make someone an industry expert. Since you mentioned that he has a relevant technology background, you should make sure he is recognised and established within the industry. Your CTO, whom you have known for 10 years, is a stronger option, provided he is an established expert and can clearly speak about the technology work you have done with him or for him within the last five years.

In your Mandatory Criteria evidence, you only listed recommendation letters. These letters are mandatory documents, but they do not count as unique evidence for the Mandatory Criteria. You will still need at least two separate and distinct pieces of evidence to support your MC.

For OC1, remember that this criterion is not about technical skills or competence. It is about innovation. Is your mobile product genuinely innovative? The evidence you listed, such as Figma designs, GitHub repositories, and user feedback, would not by themselves demonstrate innovation. The same concern applies to some of the evidence you listed under sections B, C, and D.

For OC3, the focus is on contribution. In your case, this should be contribution as a technical professional within a product led technology company, not contribution outside your paid employment. You would also need to demonstrate this as an employee rather than as a volunteer.

My suggestion would be to spend some time carefully reading and understanding the guidance. It would also be helpful to go through discussions and successful application examples on this platform so you can get a better sense of the kind of evidence that tends to work and how applicants present their cases.

All the best.