Please help review my evidence for MC + OC1 + OC3

Stage 1: Tech Nation Endorsement
1

Hi everyone,

I’m preparing an application for the UK Global Talent Visa under Exceptional Promise – Digital Technology and would really appreciate some honest feedback on my profile and proposed evidence.

A little about me:

  • I graduated in 2024 with an MSc in Global Public Health with Data Science.

  • I do not have formal professional work experience in the tech sector. Apart from an internship at UCL

  • I have developed my technical/product skills through self-learning, online courses and building my own product.

  • I am also currently enrolled in a Technical Product Management course.

  • I have been working on my digital product since February 2025.

  • The company was incorporated in the UK in 2025.

  • The product is currently at MVP/pre-beta stage.

  • I am a solo founder and have personally led the product end to end, including the frontend, backend, product/app design and mobile application development.

My proposed evidence structure is:

Mandatory Criterion – Recognition as a potential leader

MC1.1 – Media / Editorial Recognition 1

  • Independent media/editorial feature from last year

  • Evidence of recognition of my work/profile in digital technology

  • Publication details, date, article screenshots and source URL

MC1.2 – Media / Editorial Recognition 2

  • Second independent media/editorial feature from this year

  • Separate publication and more recent recognition

  • Article screenshots, publication details, date and source URL

OC1 – Innovation as a founder of a product-led digital technology company

OC1.1 – Product Innovation & Technical Differentiation
This document will explain:

  • what is innovative about the product;

  • the problem it addresses;

  • how it differs from existing approaches/products;

  • the core technical/product innovation;

  • why the combination of functionality is differentiated rather than simply a collection of standard features.

OC1.2 – Technical Architecture & System Design
This document will show:

  • the technical architecture of the platform;

  • how the different product components interact;

  • data flow and processing workflow;

  • backend/service structure;

  • system-level design decisions;

  • how the innovation described in OC1.1 is technically structured.

OC1.3 – Implementation & Technical Validation
This document will prove that the innovation was actually built rather than remaining a concept. I plan to include:

  • historical GitHub commits;

  • source-code/file-path evidence;

  • cloud deployment records;

  • container/deployment history;

  • Apple TestFlight/App Store Connect build records;

  • working product screenshots;

  • backend testing;

  • service/integration testing.

The intended progression is:

OC1.1: What is innovative → OC1.2: How it is architected → OC1.3: Evidence that it was actually implemented

OC3 – Significant technical/product contribution as founder

OC3.1 – Founder Technical Contribution
This will focus specifically on my own contribution to building the product, including:

  • backend development;

  • frontend development;

  • web development;

  • mobile application development;

  • implementation of product logic;

  • GitHub contribution/commit history;

  • dated source-code evidence;

  • technical decisions and requirements I personally developed.

OC3.2 – Founder Product Design & Execution
This will focus on my product ownership and execution, including:

  • Figma design files;

  • version history;

  • product/app design;

  • user journeys and workflows;

  • screen and feature design;

  • product requirements;

  • design-to-implementation evidence showing how my designs and specifications became part of the working product.

I would really appreciate advice on the following:

  1. Traction:
    If I get around 10–20 genuine users to use the platform before I apply, with feedback or beta-use evidence, would this be useful traction for an Exceptional Promise application, or is that too small to carry much weight?

  2. No formal tech employment:
    Since I do not have professional work experience in a technology company and most of my experience comes from building my own product and self-development, is this still a viable Exceptional Promise profile?

  3. Solo-founder build:
    Is it acceptable for a solo founder to rely heavily on evidence showing that they personally built and led the product across frontend, backend, product design and mobile implementation, provided the contribution can be substantiated with version history, GitHub records and product evidence?

  4. Recommendation letters:
    I currently do not have three senior individuals in the digital technology sector who know my work. How have other founder applicants approached this?

  5. Media recognition outside the UK:
    I have media/editorial recognition from outside the UK — one piece from last year and another from this year. Can international media evidence still be used for the Mandatory Criterion, or is UK-based recognition generally expected to carry more weight?

  6. Private GitHub repositories:
    My GitHub organisation and repositories are private because they contain my company’s intellectual property. My evidence includes screenshots showing repository names, dated commits, commit SHAs, file paths and supporting cloud deployment records. Do I need to make the GitHub organisation/repositories public for the application, or is this type of private but traceable technical evidence acceptable?

  7. One main product/company:
    Most of my OC1 and OC3 evidence relates to the same product/company that I founded. Is this acceptable, provided the evidence proves different things under each criterion?

Thank you — I’d really appreciate any honest feedback on where this profile looks strong and where I should focus on strengthening it before submission. @Akash_Joshi @Jeleel_M @Raphael @Francisca_Chiedu

2

Hi Titilayo, well done for putting this together. You’ve clearly spent time thinking through your evidence and what each document should show.

For MC, the media features could work if the publications are established nationally or internationally and the coverage recognises you for your digital technology work. Overseas recognition can be relevant; it does not have to come from the UK. Explain the publications’ standing and audience. A mix of recognition, such as speaking and editorial coverage, could strengthen the case, although variety is not itself a requirement.

One thing I would bring out is what led to that recognition. What did you build or achieve that caught their attention? Why did they choose to feature you? Showing that connection helps explain the significance of the coverage.

For OC1, my concern is that the innovation claim currently rests mainly on your own explanation. Start with the problem, compare your approach with the closest existing products, and explain exactly what is different and why it matters. Then use your architecture and implementation records to support that argument.

If the product grew out of your academic research, I would start the story there. Explain the problem you encountered, what your research revealed and how that led to the product. Dated research and early development records could show that progression, provided this reflects how the work actually developed.

With private repositories, independent validation becomes particularly useful. Screenshots and commit history can show what you built, but may not establish why it is innovative. Relevant experts who have examined or tested the implementation could explain what they found distinct and valuable, supported by specific observations. You do not need to make proprietary code public simply for the application, but the submitted evidence should be understandable without repository access.

OC3 is where I would make the biggest changes. As outlined, it overlaps heavily with OC1: code, design files, development history and implementation. Using the same company is not inherently the problem, but each criterion needs distinct evidence answering a different question.

In your case, I would build OC3 around your contribution and the results it produced: adoption, continued usage, improvements for users, product performance or commercial progress. Ten to twenty genuine users could provide useful early evidence, but explain what they used, whether they returned and what benefit they got. The number alone would not establish significant impact.

Not having formal tech employment does not itself rule out a founder application. Being a solo founder is also acceptable. Your records can establish your personal contribution, but building across frontend, backend and design does not automatically establish innovation or impact.

For the recommendation letters, consider people from your internship or professional collaborations. They must be established digital technology experts who have known your work for at least 12 months. If you do not yet have three suitable people, that needs resolving before you apply.

You have a good plan for showing that you built the product. I would now focus on showing what makes it innovative, what difference it has made and how others have recognised that work.

3

Thanks for your advice Jeleel. I appreciate!

4

Your media evidence can support MC if the articles are independent coverage of you and your work, and the publications have a credible audience. The Guide allows international recognition; explain each outlet’s standing and show what work prompted the coverage. If the pieces mainly profile the company, they may not establish your personal recognition. An MVP and 10–20 users can give useful early feedback, but the number alone would not establish significant impact.

A solo founder can apply without formal tech employment, and private repositories do not automatically rule out technical evidence. Make your role and the development history understandable from the submitted material, while protecting the code. For the three recommendation letters, you need three different, well-established digital technology experts with detailed knowledge of your work for at least 12 months. If you do not yet have people who meet that requirement, that is a real gap to address.

Using one product across OC1 and OC3 is possible, but the Guide says you cannot reuse the same evidence for more than one criterion. OC1 needs a persuasive case for what is innovative and evidence that the product is in market, with traction such as revenue where available. OC3 needs distinct evidence of your significant contribution and its impact. Architecture, commits and design history can show what you built; they do not by themselves prove innovation or significant impact.

5

Hi @Titilayo_Lawal,

My honest feedback is that, based on what you’ve shared, you do not appear to be eligible at the moment, and I’ll explain why.

  1. Your academic background alone is unlikely to be enough

While your course of study can help support your overall narrative, academic qualifications on their own generally carry limited weight in a Tech Nation application. Even then, your MSc in Global Public Health with Data Science is essentially the application of data science within the public health domain. It is more accurately described as domain applied data science rather than a core data science qualification.

The guidance requirement for role is data scientists and data engineers with demonstrable professional achievements and impact in the sector.

  1. Lack of professional experience is your biggest challenge

Showing innovation or significant contribution to a product led technology company without formal professional experience in the tech sector is going to be difficult. If the only place you have worked is the company you founded, it may be termed as Self authored evidence.

From my experience with feedbacks, the lack of corporate or established industry experience is often the biggest hurdle for recent graduates, especially when trying to demonstrate impact at the level the assessors expect. In short, the role is not viewed from what you studied but roles held in your career within the last five years. So, even as a Founder/CEO you need to have some kind of experience and here is how the guidance states it

Experience as C Suite in a SMEs + (CEO, CMO, CIO) or head of operations for a digital business

  1. Your narrative is not currently consistent

This is the area you should focus on first.

Assessors usually evaluate evidence based on the role you are presenting yourself under. If you position yourself as a Data Scientist, they will assess your evidence through that lens. However, your profile currently points in multiple directions.You talk about applying data science in public health. You are also taking a Technical Product Management course. At the same time, you want to rely on GitHub commits, backend testing, service integration testing, backend development, frontend development, and other technical contributions you did under OC3.

Most of these activities are typically associated with software engineers or full stack developers.

So the question is:

What role do you actually want to be assessed as? Data Engineer, Data Scientist, Product Manager or Software Engineer. You being a founder can complement any of them, so you can position as a Data Engineer/Founder and present both data and founder level evidence.

At the moment, I am not clear on that, and if I am struggling to understand the narrative, there is a high chance the assessors may have the same concern.

A few questions about your evidence

You have listed several pieces of evidence, but I am not entirely sure what some of them are.

For instance:

Independent media/editorial feature from last year

What exactly is this? Is it a feature for a published article, a media interview, a feature story, a research publication, or something else?

Also, regarding OC1, what exactly is innovative about the product?

Remember that Tech Nation applications are evidence based. Simply explaining that something is innovative is usually not enough. The evidence itself needs to demonstrate the innovation and your evidence need to clearly support the claims.

My suggestion would be to spend some time refining your narrative. Decide on a clear role, align all of your evidence around that role, and make sure each piece of evidence consistently demonstrates impact, innovation, and contribution.

At the moment, I think the biggest issue is not the amount of evidence, but the lack of a clear and coherent story connecting it all.

All the best.