Hi everyone,
I’m preparing my application under the Exceptional Talent - Commercial route. I’d appreciate feedback on whether my evidence portfolio is balanced across the criteria. Thanks in advance.
Mandatory Criteria #1 – Public speaking: two main-stage talks at high-profile events (including letters from the organisers in the same document) #2 – Media recognition: two tier-1 media articles on two separate accomplishments citing me (including monthly traffic information) #3 – High remuneration evidence (salary, external attestation, HR letter etc. very strong document) #4 – Reference letter from a tech investor in my country (this can be moved to OC2 as well)
Optional Criteria OC2 – Recognition for contributions outside of my core role #5 – Single PDF compiling several panel talks outside of my occupation (including letters from the organisers in the same document) I have talked at universities (2 separate panel), I attended to one university lecture as a guest speaker, I spoke at a podcast, and I have been interviewed (2 separate interviews, however weaker than the aforementioned activities)
OC3 – Commercial impact in a product-led company #6 – Evidence of commercial growth of digital products I led #7 – Letter from the founder confirming my contributions and outcomes in #6 #8 – Letter from the CEO confirming my projects in #6
3 LoRs:
Founder of a tech company that knows my work (UK)
Prominent industry leader in the sector (my country)
Tech investor that knows my work (UK)
I have 2 questions:
1- Can I combine CEO’s and founder’s letter into 1 single document? They all support the same OC3 criterion. 2- Can a reference letter be the second evidence for my OC2? I compiled several talks/activities into 1 document and now I’m out of the second document for OC2
You need to have atleast two evidences per criteria and a letter in OC2 won’t really be valid. Please consider moving one of your MC evidences maybe the speaking to OC2. Or splitting OC2 evidences in two separate documents.
ensure all the events, panels, podcasts, interviews and publications you are showing in MC and OC2 are tech leading and you establish their context before.
In OC3, two letters talking of same projects is an overkill. You can combine both letters but is the content different? If they are both talking of the same project then its impact will also be the same. Instead try finding another project evidence for the second letter. Also ensure you show impact in quantities company metrics and the letter covers it too.
Thank you for your reply. I am definitely dividing the OC2 into two:
1 with university talks (2 talks and 1 lecture), and 1 with a podcast and two very weak articles.
On top of this,
If I moved 1 large speaking event to OC2, my MC will be left with:
1- 2 articles
2- 1 main stage talk
3- high remuneration
is it enough? Would having only 1 main stage talk make my most important, Mandatory Criteria weak?
I’m very worried about this last question.
Apologies! All the best in your application. However, you need all the feedback you can get and don’t focus only on the questions in your mind.
Also, your response is not polite to someone who is just trying to contribute to your success. Be more diplomatic next time. At least a thank you first.
On your question
is it enough? Would having only 1 main stage talk make my most important, Mandatory Criteria weak?
You see, it is not the number of speaking you have on MC that matters but its relevance to tech sector and meeting the standard of a top tier tech, event also showing that you were invited based on merit and your recognition. Then evidence of you speaking on stage will come handy. So, if one speaking engagement meets the TN standard you should be fine.
Then, I think a one time large speaking may not be suitable for OC2, any evidence for recognition for your contribution outside your day to day work, should be something that is done over time. For instance, GitHub contribution, mentoring….Are not a one time event thing. Except the talk is uploaded online or published as a paper, for people in the sector to benefit over time, with good metrics, yes.
I think you have good sets of evidence. However you need to be minddul that tech nation expects a track record of contributions. I hope you conference speaking are not recent events? Were there up to 100 people at the conference. Hope they are not sponsored events related to your day jobs. Hope the letter from the organisers doesn’t mention anything about you being paid to speak.
For your Optimal criteria 2, you can split the speaking event into two evidence, ensure you don’t repeat any evidence used in MC. You also n we ti show you you have advanced the sector, some metrics could help if available.b
For evidence of impact I think you have not shown your impact. A y metrics to show your contribution? Reference letters alone are not sufficient.
Based on your profile, I see several concerns that need addressing before submitting your application. You’re walking into some common traps that have been causing rejections in recent months.
Your biggest risk is moving speaking evidence from Mandatory Criteria to OC2. I’ve seen multiple cases where applicants weakened their MC by redistributing strong evidence, only to get rejected for insufficient MC strength.
Your OC2 strategy needs rework. Panel talks and university lectures often get rejected because assessors question whether they’re truly “outside your occupation” and if they’re sector-advancing. I’ve seen rejections where assessors specifically noted university talks “lack sector-advancing content” and questioned if activities were part of commercial agreements. Split your evidence into two distinct types - perhaps structured mentorship with clear selection criteria as one, and industry contributions with measurable impact as another.
For OC3, combining CEO and founder letters addressing the same projects is exactly what assessors are flagging as “overkill” in recent rejections. They want to see different projects or different types of evidence for commercial impact. Focus on quantifiable metrics and third-party verification rather than multiple letters about identical work. One strong letter with solid metrics beats two letters about the same achievement.