Please help to review my evidences for exceptional talent (Lead UX/Product Designer)

Stage 1: Tech Nation Endorsement
1

Hello, I’m a Lead UX/Product Designer with 10+ years of experience, currently based in the UK and applying for the Global Talent Visa under the Exceptional Talent route. I’d really appreciate any feedback on my evidence mapping.

MC1: Pega Email Bot
“Leading the UX Transformation of Pega Email Bot,”
Pegasystems, May 2020–Nov 2023. Reframed the brief from an interface refresh to redesigning AI trust, transparency and feedback, based on original research (heuristic eval plus agent interviews). Evidence: research artifacts, shipped screens, a Design System workshop I initiated, and customer outcomes (50% response-time cut at one client, 65% monitoring-effort reduction at another, disclaimed as not solely attributable to me).

MC2: Career Progression
“Career Progression and Recognition in Digital Technology,” Temenos (formerly Kony) / Pegasystems, 2017–2023. Two promotions in ~18 months at one company, later promoted to Principal UX Product Designer (“significant contribution and evolving role,” Job Grade 8 to 9). Evidence: company promotion letters, performance reviews (100%, 110% individual achievement), equity grants, and an internal team award certificate.

MC3: Contribution Beyond Employment
Structured 1:1 mentoring via ADPList, 21 sessions and 675 minutes to date, evidenced by platform-issued, independently verifiable milestone credentials (with credential links), plus 100% mentee rating across 4 categories and a written testimonial. Also public UX/career content on LinkedIn, YouTube and Instagram (modest reach). (Heard ADPList may be seen as unstructured by Tech Nation, unconfirmed, would appreciate real experience on this, particularly whether verifiable milestone credentials change that view.)

OC1, Innovation, Evidence 1: TADA
“TADA: From Product Designer to Product Builder,” independent project, Jul–Aug 2026. Solo-conceived, designed and built an AI-assisted cross-platform task app, concept through to public release on iOS, Android and Web. Evidence: design artifacts, AI-dev screenshots, App Store/Play/web listings. (Built about two months ago, so timing given proximity to application is a concern.)

OC1, Evidence 2: Pega Launchpad
“Pega Launchpad: Designing a New Enterprise Product Experience,” Pegasystems, 2022–2023. Led UX for a new B2B SaaS platform, defining Provider and Subscriber interaction patterns from scratch. Evidence: exploration boards, a pattern library, and public third-party adoption (10+ named clients, sourced from public event and award data).

OC1, Evidence 3: ADA
“ADA: Leading the UX Design of a GenAI Enterprise Innovation Assistant,” HCLTech, client Avolta (Dufry), 2024. Defined the human/AI control model for a generative-AI assistant from original research (6 interviews, 5 discovery sessions). Evidence: research, design decisions, and a self-disclosed section on evidence limits.

OC2, Significant Contribution, Evidence 1: Bank of Jordan
“Bank of Jordan: Improving the Mobile Banking Experience,” Temenos (formerly Kony), 2018. App rating improved from 2.8 to 4.7 following the redesign. This one’s outside the 5-year window, so I’m using it as personal-statement context rather than core evidence.

OC2, Evidence 2: Legal & General
“Legal & General: Enterprise Experience Transformation,” HCLTech, 2024. Led UX strategy for an enterprise insurance quoting platform, contributing to a ~50% cut in quote turnaround time. Evidence: workflow artifacts, before/after comparisons, and independent corroboration from a Group Manager who worked with me on the engagement.

Letters

  1. VP, Coforge (covers MC2, OC2 Evidence 1). - Received.
  2. VP, User Experience, AspenTech (covers MC1, OC1 Evidence 2). - Received.
  3. Group Manager, HCLTech (covers OC1 Evidence 3, OC2 Evidence 2). - Awaiting!

Planning to submit by end of this Sep 2026. Please review and provide your valuable feedback! Thanks in advance!
@Akash_Joshi @Francisca_Chiedu

2

The mandatory criterion is where this pack is thin, and it is worth rethinking before you submit. Career progression rests entirely on internal signals: promotions, performance reviews, equity, an internal award. The Guide is explicit that company-internal recognition does not meet the mandatory bar, which asks for national or international recognition as a leading talent. A promotion tells the assessor your employer values you, and the criterion is asking a wider question about how the field sees you.

ADPList is the piece you flagged, and the concern is fair. Verifiable milestone credentials confirm the sessions happened, but they do not turn mentoring into recognition of you as a leader. The volume of sessions shows sustained participation in the community, which sits below the level of the sector rating you above your peers, and that is the distinction the mandatory criterion turns on. Keep it as supporting evidence, but do not ask it to carry a mandatory slot. What lifts a design profile is recognition the field controls, like an invited conference talk or a judged design award where others put you forward.

Your independent app is the timing risk you have already spotted. A solo project released weeks before applying can read as built for the application, and assessors do notice the proximity. Lead your innovation criterion with the enterprise product work that predates this submission and carries third-party adoption, then let the app sit behind it as support.

3

Overall, the structure is quite coherent, and your strongest areas appear to be MC1 and the Legal & General contribution, with MC2 providing useful supporting context. The main thing I would watch is whether each evidence set demonstrates your individual contribution and recognition, rather than simply the success of the product/company.

For MC3, ADPList can be useful if you can clearly demonstrate that the mentoring is structured, sustained and genuinely outside your employment. The platform credentials and verifiable session history help. I would avoid relying heavily on the LinkedIn/YouTube/Instagram reach unless the numbers are substantial.

For OC1, TADA is relevant to innovation, but because it is a very recent project, there is currently limited evidence of adoption or impact. I would therefore make the innovation itself very clear and avoid relying on the recent release alone. Pega Launchpad appears more established and could provide stronger validation if the client adoption can be independently evidenced. ADA also looks relevant, particularly if you can clearly establish what was novel about your approach and your personal ownership.

For OC2, the 2018 Bank of Jordan project should indeed be treated cautiously because it falls outside the relevant five-year period. The 2024 Legal & General work is much more useful as core evidence, particularly with independent corroboration and a measurable outcome.

Your recommendation letters are generally well aligned, but avoid having one referee simply repeat what another evidence document already establishes. Each should add credibility around your specific contribution, expertise and impact.

The biggest improvement I would make is to strengthen independent/third-party validation wherever possible, particularly for TADA and the internal company projects. The application will be stronger if an assessor can verify the significance of your work without relying entirely on your own explanation or employer documentation.

4

@Tamil105

On your MC evidence leading the UX Transformation of Pega Email Bot, you see MC is not about what you did in your discipline role, like redesigning. It’s about showing that you had an oversight function and provided direction, leadership for the product. Research you carried out to shape product direction can work, but shipped screens will not. A design‑system workshop can work depending on the context, and customer outcomes are not your artefact; they can only be referenced through a letter while you present the actual evidence you have the rights to show.

Career progression and promotions do not show sector level recognition. Also, MC3 is not about this type of mentoring, it can work under OC2, but ADPList and similar online mentoring platforms are no longer accepted. Mentoring should be physical, or at most hybrid.

OC1 is about innovation, not career transition or product design. You need to show whether this is an innovation or something you did within a new concept. For OC1, Evidence 2 is not about how you led, that belongs to MC. OC1 is focused strictly on innovation. You need to talk about your product innovation, not how you led it. The same applies to OC1, Evidence 3: ADA. You need to show the innovation evidence of the GenAI Enterprise Innovation Assistant, not just that you led it.

For OC2 Significant Contribution - Evidence 1: Bank of Jordan. This criterion is about what you did outside the sector, where you were recognised to contribute in a way that advanced the sector. Your contribution at Bank of Jordan will not show this. The same applies to OC2, Evidence 2: Legal & General. Your mentoring evidence can work here, but not with ADPList or similar platforms.

The authors of your letters may be okay, but I suggest you still review their public profiles to ensure that what you know of them as established experts is reflected there. They should also meet the other recommendation letter criteria.

All the best.

5

@Tamil105 Is this Legal & General, the leading UK financial services provider? If so, this would not be suitable for OC2, as it is a for-profit company.

Also, the work you delivered here would not demonstrate progression or advancement within the tech sector.