Hi all,
I’m currently working in a UK-based biotech startup and I’m leading the consumable product section. I’ve been working there for over a year and half - straight after graduating from uni with an MEng Mechanical Engineering degree with 1st class honours. I have had a significant role in growing the company in both commercial and technical aspects.
I am going to apply for the Exceptional Promise route using the following evidence:
LORs:
1- Lead investor at the startup - knows my work directly - he is a recognised tech expert
2- CEO of the startup - Global Talent Visa recipient - attests on both my technical and commercial impacts
3- Professor at uni - recipient of an MBE - knows my work outside of uni as well
MCs:
1- Evidence of being primary inventor on 2 patents
2- Evidence of presenting at 2 high-profile conferences with 100+ attendees each
3- Evidence of short-term growth of company / product with letter of intent from a customer mentioning my direct involvement
4- Referral by our medical partner with 40+ years of experience in the field, acknowledging the impact and innovation of my work for medical diagnostics
OC3: Commercial impact and growth
1- Technical breakdown of a secondary product I developed (aside from the main product the company sells). This is accompanied by project sales and impact of the new product pipeline I enabled.
2- Referral by the CTO of the startup attesting to my technical impact
3- Evidence of impact on the long-term growth of the company such as bringing investors in to contribute to the seed round and finding distributors to handle the product
OC4: Academic excellence
1- Grade transcript showing that I received 1st class honours
2- Referral from my professor
3- Evidence of 2 awards received during my FYP research project
I’m still a bit confused about whether OC4 is only applicable for PhD level applicants or above as this is not clear in the guidelines.
Please advise if that’s the case (I can use evidence for OC1 if I can’t use OC4) and if my evidence looks sound for an Endorsement for Exceptional Promise.
Thank you for time and feedback!
Best,
Mohamad
I think you should do OC1 as your OC4 evidence are not sufficient. Your degree transcript is not enough, what exactly is your research contribution?
For the patent you can use it for innovation as an employee working in new digital field. If you have more than one conference you can split them into two separate evidence.
1 Like
Thanks Francisca,
Can I also split the patents into 2 separate evidence?
My research was during my master’s year so might not be very strong as you pointed out. I was referring to this section of TN’s guidance for using my grades transcript and awards: “Evidence of awards received for outstanding applied work, supported by excellent academic achievement (a first-class degree or distinction)”.
Do my evidences for OC3 and MC look strong enough?
Thanks again
1 Like
Hi,
Your LOR looks okay, however the Professor at uni - recipient of an MBE, whilst being Member of the Order of the British Empire is a good significant achievement of outstanding service to the community, you need to be to be sure that he satisfies Be an ‘established expert in digital technology. Academics are not necessarily experts in digital technology, they are scholars.
Whilst considering splitting similar evidence to cover for two criteria:
You should be mindful of using same (related) piece of evidence for more than one criteria, and each document should be unique (something related to this is stated on the guidance)
Also note that that your first class can only be used as a supporting evidence and the Research undertaken as part of an undergraduate or MSc thesis does not qualify for this criteria, so your awards for your final year project may not be sufficient. So, as @Francisca_Chiedu rightly said I think you should consider OC1(…track record of innovation in the digital technology sector…) as your OC4 evidence may not meet the criteria.
On your question, if your evidence looks sound for an Endorsement for Exceptional Promise. I think so, but you need to present them in strategic, compelling manner showing facts, metrics and external verification.
All the best.
1 Like
Hi Raphael,
First, thanks for the detailed feedback and advice.
I’ll make sure to let my professor know to include that he’s an expert in the field - he has many achievements outside of academia that will fit the criteria.
The 2 patents I hold would both cover for OC1 in that case - they’re each related to a different section of the field - lmk if you want me to clarify further on that. I think I can use them as separate evidence for OC1.
Taking your feedback and Francisca’s, I will focus my evidence on OC1 rather than OC4. This said, TN’s guidance is unclear on whether I can use a letter of recommendation from an employer for OC1 as most the guidance is related to senior members and founders (that fit the Exceptional Talent criteria not Exceptional Promise). My plan is to detail my contributions towards the technical innovation and attach my employer’s recommendation to the evidence. Would that meet the criteria for OC1?
Thanks for the encouragement and feedback.
1 Like
Yes! It is not explicitly stated whether one can use a letter from an employer. But going by what is stated
Evidence of recognition, such as Reference Letters, provided by an immediate colleague, manager, or friend are not sufficient.
The interpretation may be subjective, however, I think manager in this context may refer to a direct, immediate line manager. So an employer should be able to write a reference letter, referencing what you have done in the company.
Also note, that LORs are different from Reference letters, and the criteria for LOR writers, may not be used for Referees.
What you intend do is okay, but needs to be presented strategically with facts, metrics and external verification.
1 Like
Ok - from reading other posts, I think the manager is immediate line manager as you stated.
I’ve got metrics and external validation for everything as well! 
Thanks again
1 Like
Yes you can split your parents. You can use it in OCI and MC
1 Like
Thanks for that - will I need to provide details about the innovation or is a google patent link enough?
1 Like
Hey @Francisca_Chiedu
You mentioned that I can split both my conferences into 1 piece of evidence each. Would that be enough as 2 pieces of evidence for OC2 by any chance?
“Talks or conference speaking that have had a significant viewership. Conferences must be widely regarded as sector-leading events for your field with at least 100 attendees (not registrations). As a speaker you must be speaking on the main stage and the invitation to speak must not have been paid for by your organisation as part of any sponsorship. You should clearly declare whether your employer was a sponsor of the conference. Leading a workshop or running a session at a conference is not sufficient. Evidence should include your speech with either a link to the video of you speaking, the programme of events displaying your talk or a reference letter from the conference organiser with explanation of why you were asked to speak.”
Thanks
Your strategy looks solid but needs some refinement to meet the current Tech Nation guidelines. I’ve reviewed similar applications for biotech engineers and see a few areas where you can strengthen your case. Since you’re early in your career with strong technical contributions, focus on demonstrating your individual impact rather than team achievements.
Drop OC4 and pivot to OC1 for your patent evidence. The 2025 guidelines now require granted patents for OC1, and academic transcripts alone won’t satisfy OC4 requirements for someone at MEng level. Split your two patents into separate OC1 evidence pieces, ensuring each clearly demonstrates your role as primary inventor. Include technical breakdowns of the innovations and commercial potential, not just patent links. For your startup growth evidence in OC3, provide specific metrics showing your direct contributions to company valuation and customer acquisition.
Your letter of reference strategy needs attention. Make sure your professor explicitly states their expertise in digital technology - academic credentials alone aren’t sufficient. For your CEO and investor letters, have them explain why your innovations matter to the digital technology sector, not just what you accomplished. From successful applications I’ve seen, the strongest evidence combines hard metrics with external validation from recognized industry experts who can articulate your technical contributions in commercial terms.
1 Like
Hi @Akash_Joshi
Thanks for the detailed feedback - I still have a few questions regarding OC1 since the guidelines seem to be directed for applicants looking to go for the Exceptional Talent route instead of the Exceptional Promise route:
- First question is regarding patents. One of the patents is granted and I can provide details of my contribution to the invention. This contribution is also validated in LORs. The other patent is still pending. I can however still provide details regarding the innovation aspect, my contribution to the invention and the importance of the patent. Can I still use these as separate evidences even though the second patent isn’t granted yet but still a significant technical contribution to the field?
- Can I use an LOR for OC1 that highlights my innovations from the CTO of the company? I don’t see something around that in the examples in the guidelines but the letter clearly highlights my innovative contributions and leadership potential
For OC3, I wanted to check if the metrics I’m providing are enough:
- For the investment document, I’m providing evidence on how much money my contributions brought to the company (6-figure number). I might also get a letter from the investment firm stating that I had a pivotal role leading the conversations to this point. Alternatively, the CEO of the company can attest to my contribution.
- For the distributor evidence, I’m providing market breakdown and potential revenue streams if the deal goes through - I have a LOI from the distributor clearly stating that I had a pivotal role in the conversations.
- Same goes for a “spinout” project within the company that opens up a new revenue stream → I’m providing data on market size and sales projections.
- I’m getting some data verified by the CEO of the company in his LOR (part of the mandatory LORs). Do I need to get evidence specifically in each OC document or can I refer back to the LOR in the writeup?
Thanks for your time as always and have a great day!
All the requirements, including Oc1, apply to everyone. There’s no distinction between Promise and Talent in that case.
- Try not to use them as separate Oc1 evidences as one of them is patent pending. You could use the other one in mc or oc3 instead.
- You can use a reference letter, which will be separate from your main 3 letters of recommendation
- Oc3 seems fine. Hard to say without looking at the actual evidences though. It depends on how you structure them
1 Like
Thanks @Akash_Joshi - just quickly addressing your points:
- Is it still ok as an evidence if the patent is pending if I provide enough evidence of my contribution towards a significant innovation? I’m planning on using the granted patent as evidence for MC and the pending one as evidence for OC1. I’ll still breakdown the invention and highlight my contribution in both.
- I’m happy sharing my evidences with you once I finish the writeup if that’s something you can help out with. I believe my structure is coherent enough but doesn’t hurt to have someone else look at them I guess
1 Like
it works but it uis best to have diverse evidence pool, also a third evidence may be useful incase one of the evidence doesn’t pass.
2 Likes
Hey all,
Just had a followup question as I finalise my docs to submit this weekend:
Does the LOR have to be dated? If so, what’s the acceptable gap between the submission date and the date on the LOR?
Thanks
Yes, it has to be dated. I think within 6 months is an acceptable gap.
1 Like
It must be dated but there is no specific date timeline. If you are using a stale letter ensure it meets the update Tech Nation guide.
1 Like
Hi @Francisca_Chiedu @Raphael @Akash_Joshi
I’m happy to share that I received my endorsement this morning for Stage 1 Exceptional Promise. I would like to thank you for the invaluable feedback you provided me and others as I was able to avoid recurring mistakes.
I ended up submitting:
- 4 MC documents:
- 1 testimony from a client
- 1 testimony from a fundraising partner
- 1 document evidencing 2 high speaking events with 3rd party validation
- 1 document showing commercial impact with a signed LOI highlighting my contribution.
- 3 OC1 documents:
- 1 granted patent description
- 1 pending patent description
- 1 letter from the CTO of the company attesting to my involvement in the IP generation for both patents + recognising my technical innovation in general (outside the scope of the patent)
- 3 OC3 documents:
- 1 document with technical diagrams of a secondary project I worked on whilst at the company. I included projected sales and impact.
- 1 document showcasing my impact towards the upcoming seed round for the company. I showed that my contributions brought in £1M+ in investment for the company.
- 1 document showing my impact on the global growth of the company with 3rd party validation.
General comments: MC → focus on 3rd party recognition. OC1 → focus on technical innovation. if there is 3rd party validation that’s a bonus. OC3 → recognition for impact. Where possible include a letter from a 3rd party to add credibility to your claims.
For the LORs, I had 2 Docusigned ones. For the 3rd LOR, they contacted the referee to double check the endorsement → If you can Docusign letters that adds credibility and potentially less processing time.
For the Personal Statement, I made sure to have a cohesive story as to how everything from my evidences and career path strings together and how that affects my plan to stay in the UK and contribute to the tech scene.
If you’ve made it this far, hope this was a helpful read, and good luck in your applications!!
5 Likes