Please Review Request (Exceptional Talent)

Stage 1
24

The timing alone won’t disqualify it. Assessors care about whether the metrics demonstrate measurable impact, not how many months have passed since launch. Six months of traction data with a clear growth trajectory works for Promise.

The weaker point is the revenue. Low absolute numbers get converted to GBP during assessment, and a strong percentage growth curve on a small base can still read as modest commercial impact. Lead with user acquisition and retention figures if they tell a stronger story than the revenue.

Your employer’s letter needs to draw a direct line between the January feature launch and the customer growth that followed. Without that causal link, the traction reads as company performance rather than your individual contribution.

1 Like
25

Recency isn’t the issue. The Guide requires significant technical or commercial contributions but doesn’t set a minimum tenure. A feature that drove measurable user growth over two quarters is a valid OC3 narrative regardless of when you joined the company.

The vulnerability is the revenue. If the absolute numbers are modest because of pricing and currency, lead with the user acquisition trajectory and frame revenue as a growth trend rather than a snapshot. Assessors want to see that your work moved a commercial metric, and which one you emphasise is your choice.

1 Like
26

@Jennifer

Your role is engineering, your strongest evidence lies in your technical contribution, the work you personally did to build, improve, or launch the product. You can then use commercial results like user growth or adoption to validate the impact of your technical work.

The commercial contribution examples in the Tech Nation guidance mainly apply to business applicants like founders, CEOs, or marketing leads whose day‑to‑day work is tied to sales, revenue, or strategy. For engineers, assessors focus on technical artefacts, code, architecture diagrams, product documentation, or letters confirming your role in building the product. Just as they won’t assess CEOs, or marketing experts on code, architecture diagrams and those artefacts technical people own.

It’s normal that engineers don’t have access to financial or marketing data unless they’re in management. So, your founder can mention those commercial outcomes in their letters, for example, noting the metrics and mentioning that you were given access to share company metrics to support your application.

In short:

Focus on what you personally built or did technically.

Use commercial growth like user numbers or adoption only as supporting evidence to show the impact of your technical contribution.

Don’t worry if revenue is still small, from my experience with supporting successful applicants, Tech Nation first assess applicants in relative to their discipline or area of expertise, then other artefacts can validate.

Your contribution is first checked around technicality, then sales as supporting.

All the best.

1 Like
29

Six months of live traction after a feature launch isn’t automatically too early-stage for OC3. The Guide asks for significant technical or commercial contributions and doesn’t set a minimum timeframe. A clear before/after growth curve tied to your specific feature launch is the shape assessors look for.

The weak spot is on the revenue side. If the absolute revenue numbers are modest, the piece leans on user acquisition growth alone, and that growth needs to be independently verifiable through dashboards or a reference letter from someone senior who can attribute the inflection to your work rather than the product generally. Under Promise, the scale bar is lower, but the attribution still has to be airtight.

2 Likes
31

I really appreciate your feedback @Akash_Joshi and @Raphael

32

@Raphael @Akash_Joshi @Noddy @pahuja Following your feedback, these are my updated pieces of evidence for Promise for MC and OC3. I’ll share OC2 later. Please help me review them and share any feedback or loopholes.

MC1: Senior Contributor to a Large Technology-Led Industry Initiative

  • Introduction: Introduced my role, the initiative, and a short summary of my impact.

  • Why the AI initiative qualifies as a large technology-led industry initiative:

    • Screenshot of the partners directly supporting or funding the initiative, such as the university.
    • Evidence of the standing/ranking of these partners, with links for verification.

  • Evidence that proves I was recognised:

    • Screenshot of my formal email invitation from the Deputy Head of the university to become a session facilitator, reviewer, and mentor.
    • Screenshot from the university’s public website showing my name and photo as a member of the Technical Programme Committee.

  • My contributions to the initiative:

    • Screenshot of my Microsoft Teams conversation with the Deputy Head demonstrating my seniority and responsibilities within the programme.
    • Screenshot and link to my speaking session on the university’s subdomain, including what I spoke about.

  • Impact of my contribution:

    • YouTube recording with over 7,000 views and 200+ likes.
    • Screenshot of programme registrations on Eventbrite showing over 3,000 registrations.
    • Reference letter from the Deputy Head corroborating my contributions and the claims above.

MC2: Speaker at Specialist Events in the Field of Digital Technology

  • Introduction: Introduced the events at which I have spoken and explained what makes them specialist technology events.

  • Evidence that the events are recognised in the technology sector:

    • Screenshot from an independent technology website listing one of the conferences alongside Google I/O as one of the top 20 global developer conferences, including its attendance of over 4,000 each year.
    • Another independent source featuring the event among the top technology conferences in Europe.
    • Screenshot of the official event programme speaker list, including engineers from Google and Microsoft.

  • Evidence that proves I was recognised:

    • Screenshot of my invitation email to speak.
    • Official event programme for that year listing me alongside speakers from AWS and Microsoft.
    • Evidence of my being featured as an expert on the organiser’s website.
    • My session published on the organiser’s website and YouTube channel. The organiser usually makes these sessions available only on its website behind a paywall. But mine was also published on YT

  • My contribution and impact:

    • Brief explanation of the technical subject I spoke about and the knowledge I contributed.
    • YouTube recording with 5,000+ views and 100+ likes.
    • Evidence that I was invited to speak again the following year.
    • Reference letter from the Event and Programme Manager confirming an audience of 300+ and corroborating the claims above.

MC3: Published Material in Major Media About My Work in the Digital Technology Sector

  • Introduction: Introduced the media outlets that invited me, what they specialise in, and what I discussed with each. One is a podcast and the other is a professional media publication.

  • Why the outlets qualify as professional or major media platforms:

    • Podcast: Independent evidence of its reputation, including a screenshot from an independent website listing it among the “100 Best Podcasts Worth Listening To”, alongside podcasts such as The Diary of a CEO.
    • Media publication: Evidence of the year it was established and a screenshot of Reuters reporting on a conference organised by the publication at which a Central Bank Governor delivered a speech.
    • Media publication: Screenshot from Similarweb showing more than 4 million website visits each month.

  • Evidence that proves I was recognised:

    • Screenshots of the email invitations from each media outlet.
    • Screenshots of the interviews published on their respective platforms.

  • Impact of the insights I shared:

    • Podcast: I shared architectural insights about a product I co-founded. The product subsequently entered a second wave of growth, increasing from 600+ to 1,000+ users.
    • Media publication: The interview was published on its website, while the live interview was also published on the publication’s official YouTube channel. The video has received over 7,000 views, 300+ likes, and 20+ comments.

OC3.1: Significant Contribution and Impact as Technical Lead and Co-Founder

  • Introduction: A short overview of the product, my role, the significant technical contribution I made, and a summary of its impact.

  • My contributions:

    • Screenshot of the architecture diagram documenting my significant technical contribution, with a link to the publicly available version.
    • Blog post from the company’s website explaining the contribution in greater detail and acknowledging my name and role.
    • GitHub pull request showing my name, the date of the contribution, and when it was merged.

  • Impact of my contribution:

    • A metrics table showing the phases since the product’s launch, the timeline by quarter, cumulative users, and the engineering developments that occurred during each period. I explained the table, highlighting when my contribution was launched, the subsequent increase in users and revenue, and how the media interview presented in MC3 contributed to the product’s visibility.
    • Paystack dashboard showing revenue.
    • Stripe payment analytics showing revenue, with the Paystack and Stripe figures combined to demonstrate total revenue.
    • Claude Console showing performance metrics for the quarter in which my contribution was launched.
    • MongoDB Compass showing the current total number of users.

OC3.2: Significant Technical Contribution to a Product as a Key Employee

  • Introduction: A brief overview of the product, my role, my technical contribution, and a summary of its impact.

  • My contributions:

    • Architecture diagram documenting my contribution, with a link to the publicly available version.
    • GitHub pull request history showing some of the PRs I have raised, with dates demonstrating my continued contributions to the present.
    • GitHub pull request for one of my significant technical contributions, including evidence of the reviewers.

  • Impact of my contribution:

    • A table showing cumulative growth and relevant metrics from the startup’s initial deployment to the present.
    • MongoDB evidence showing total users during the quarter in which my contribution was launched, the following quarter, and the current total number of users.
    • Clarity analytics showing the change in users before and after my contribution was launched.
    • Reference letter from the CEO corroborating my contribution, its impact, and the claims above.
33

Hi @Raphael @Akash_Joshi wondering if you’ve been able to scan through