Request for Feedback | Exceptional promise (business route)

Stage 1: Tech Nation Endorsement
1

Hello everyone,

I hope you’re well.

I’m a global growth and marketing lead at a fintech, which is based in the UK. I have led the tech product launches across 3 regions in 3 highly regulated environments. 2 of the products are the first in the market. I’m thinking of applying, building upon my work. I would appreciate feedback, including what seems to be most irrelevant to what is required. Please feel free to criticize so I know what to improve and share how you think about my innovation criteria.

Mandatory criteria:

1: Demonstrate that work during the last two to three years contributed to fintech’s commercial success across the UK, USA and another country, supported by internal recognition by management and rapid progress in career

Internal evidence: Emails from the CEO and senior commercial head appreciating my work (using my name) and highlighting that $X million and X number of customers were acquired due to “pure marketing”.

Internal evidence: Screenshots of internal appraisal, highlighting my process adaptation along with other points.

Internal evidence: Title and salary progression from early-career hire to becoming current stage

2. Demonstrate that commercial success due to marketing was driven by me, as I directed the global strategy rather than merely supporting the team and supporting emerging talent cases

Internal Evidence: A letter from the Chief Business Officer that explicitly states that the sole ownership of marketing and growth was directed by me and how he recognises me as an emerging leader. He is someone with credentials that are very impressive, and he is well recognised in the field.

3. Demonstrate that I also contribute at a strategy level rather than only executing and supporting emerging talent cases

Internal Evidence: screenshots of global growth slides presented to the management team,

Internal Evidence: screenshot of meeting invites (recurring) for strategy meetings that include the CEO and other heads of functional teams

Internal Evidence: Organisation organogram or structure, showing growth and marketing as a one-person team and no other growth or IR function

Internal Evidence: Official job description from HR and latest promotion letter from HR

Optional Criteria 3: I want to demonstrate that I’ve proven a consistent commercial impact, as my method worked across the UK, the USA and another country across 4 different value propositions, proving it is a repeatable individual capability.

  1. Commercial impact on UK Venture Fund: Demonstrate that my strategy acquired x investors who invested $xm in x number of startups

    Internal Evidence: Nurture and campaign boards, supported by internal dashboards

    Internal Evidence: Amount raised per deal and number of deals, supported by internal dashboards and press clippings

    External Evidence: Proof of conversation on WhatsApp (old and dated) with the founder of one of the ventures.

    External Evidence: Attach press clips of the raise where my company would be mentioned.

  2. Commercial impact on UK real estate: Under my growth ownership, $xm was raised across x number of deals, and investors returned deal after deal

    Internal Evidence: Amount raised per deal and total number of deals, supported by internal dashboards and press clippings

    Internal Evidence: Number of investors per deal and repeat investors per deal, supported by internal dashboards

    Internal Evidence: Detailed breakdown of one deal in terms of money and investors as a case study, supported by internal dashboards

  3. Commercial impact on US Fund: demonstrate that my work commercially impacted the US fund on the days I ran marketing campaigns

    Internal Evidence: Change in investment amount, number of investors, conversions, and other metrics when I ran the campaigns. The evidence is from internal automated dashboards, which are widely known and used in industry.

    External evidence: an external partner who supported the fund confirming my role through an email.

  4. Commercial impact in a product launch in another country: demonstrate that my work also commercially impacted a third market. I was responsible for the launch strategy of a product.

    Internal evidence: yes, from that country’s CEO

    Internal Evidence: Have data regarding the number of investors and amount raised from the dashboard as well as email showing that I owned the strategy and led it.

    Optional Criteria 1: I want to highlight that not only do I run the campaigns, but I also innovate them if they don’t perform the required job or there is some issue.

  5. Process innovation because of regulation complexities: demonstrate that I innovated a marketing and growth method in the UK. The improvement happened as the regulator removed a major part of the existing market entry method. I reengineered the whole process, which focused on identifying current non-customers and reaching out to them in a scalable method whilst keeping in mind the regulator.

    Internal Evidence: visual diagram of old and current processes, supported by internal dashboards

    Internal Evidence: how the process was reengineered the first time in the UK and how it kept innovating in the US

    Internal Evidence: how the re-engineered process improved and reduced the time it takes to fill the deal, like the deal filled in hours vs week, supported by the internal dashboard.

    Internal Evidence: Email from the head of the region and CEO praising the success of the method.

  6. Press clipings of the launches of new products/ categories/ countries.

    External evidence: Press clips from the main products showing it’s the first in those regions. Will talk about the company, just note it doesn’t name me as we just add quotes from the region head and the CEO.

    Internal evidence: can add to show all the approvals for launch material with my name if that helps prove this point

    Best,

2

Hello,

Thanks for sharing. Strong foundatio, real commercial impact, senior recognition, and clear ownership. Main risk: too much evidence, and OC1 reads as process improvement rather than innovation.

Mandatory Criteria

  • MC1 (commercial success, 3 countries, recognition, progression): Strongest area. CEO/senior emails naming you with $Xm and X customers are exactly right. Weaknesses: “pure marketing” undersells you. say you owned the growth strategy. Appraisal screenshots and salary alone are routine unless tied to exceptional impact and scope expansion. Bring the third country into MC1 instead of burying it in OC3.

  • MC2 (you directed strategy, not supported): Strong. CBO letter confirming sole ownership is ideal. Drop “emerging leader” if you’re already operating at head-of-function level, and add what would have happened without you.

  • MC3 (strategy-level contribution): Organogram showing you as a one-person function is excellent. Meeting invites prove attendance, not contribution pair with decisions you influenced and outcomes. Get a line from CEO/CBO confirming strategic contribution.

Optional Criteria 3 (consistent commercial impact)

Four value propositions across three countries is compelling. But it’s bloated. Create a one-page table: market → value proposition → your role → key metric → source. Demote or cut WhatsApp proof (informal, weak), uncontextualized press clippings, and too many dashboard screenshots. For the US Fund, address the counterfactual. what happened on non-campaign days? Name the third country.

Optional Criteria 1 (innovation)

Weakest as described. It reads as process improvement, not innovation. For each case, answer: what was the old process, why did it break, what did you design that was new, what measurable outcome followed. Before/after diagram with metrics (weeks → hours to fill a deal) is strong. Internal approval is not enough for OC1. Show adoption, reuse, or external recognition. “New category” must mean new in that market, with you creating the playbook.

Most irrelevant / low-value

  • WhatsApp with a founder: Cut this out or demote.

  • Generic appraisal screenshots: Only needed if they mention exceptional impact.

  • Meeting invites alone: Pair this with outcomes or remove.

  • Press clippings without your name or a metric: This has background noise.

  • Salary progression without scope progression: This is weak alone.

  • “Pure marketing” framing: This undersells you.

Final suggestions

  1. Lead with CEO/CBO letters, revenue numbers, organogram.

  2. Cut weak evidence.

  3. Name the third country.

  4. Quantify everything.

  5. Keep MC and OC evidence separate. Don’t let OC3 dilute MC1/MC2.

  6. For OC1, prove novelty and adoption, not just internal approval.

  7. Ask referees to confirm ownership, impact, and innovation not just praise.

You have a strong case. The risk is burying it. Tighten the narrative and make the three-country, four-value-proposition, repeatable impact the spine of your application.

I would be happy to help further.

Best of luck.

3

@Benjamen, thank you for your contributions. We would also love to see more people join in so the platform can continue to grow and better support applicants.

To ensure people get the guidance they truly need, it’s important that contributions go beyond direct AI generated responses. Applicants can already use AI themselves, but what they often seek here is real insight, experience, and clarity.

As someone who consistently contributes on this platform, I’ve received both public and private feedback from people who felt misled or confused by certain guidance, some even deeply upset. Because of guidance that have rendered them helpless or put them in tight situations. I believe we all share a responsibility to help make the space more useful and supportive for everyone.

Thank you once again for your efforts, and I hope we can continue working together to strengthen the community.

image
image1446×202 32.4 KB

4

I understand this. I had the replies then gave it for a proper structuring. This is noted thanks you.

5

Dear Raphael,

Hope you’re well.

I was wondering if you would like to share your feedback.

Best

6

The evidence leans almost entirely on internal validation, and that’s the structural risk worth fixing first. Nearly everything you’ve listed sits inside the company that employs you. The Mandatory Criteria asks you to show you’ve been recognised as a leading talent, or shown the potential to be one, across the digital technology sector, and sector-level recognition has to come from outside your own organisation. A senior colleague vouching for you, however well credentialled, is still your employer rating its own staff.

Your press coverage is where external recognition should live, but you’ve noted it names the company and the region head, with no mention of you. Coverage that quotes your CEO about a launch counts as recognition for the venture, and the assessor will treat it that way. If even one launch can be tied to you by name in an independent outlet, that single piece carries more weight than a stack of internal dashboards.

The same gap shows up on the innovation criterion. Internal sign-off on your reengineered process shows your company approved it, and the assessor still needs proof it was novel. Evidence that the method was adopted or recognised beyond your own team, with the before and after metric attached, is what turns a process improvement into an innovation case. At the moment the application shows your company values you highly. What it’s missing is independent proof that the wider sector rates you at the same level.

7

I’d look at this mainly through what the evidence proves about your personal contribution, rather than the volume of commercial metrics. The cross-market results are useful, but the current Global Talent criteria distinguish between demonstrating commercial success and demonstrating that you personally made a significant contribution.

For MC, the career progression, salary/title progression and senior-management recognition can help establish that you are being recognized within your organisation. The CEO/CBO evidence could be particularly useful if it clearly explains your individual ownership of the growth strategy and why your work was considered significant. However, the mandatory criterion
requires recognition as potential talent in digital technology, so the
strongest evidence should establish recognition of you personally rather than relying mainly on internal career progression or commercial results. Statements such as “$X million acquired due to pure marketing” will also be stronger if the evidence explains the causal link to your strategy and decisions, rather than simply showing that marketing generated revenue. Internal recognition is relevant, but the overall MC case needs to establish recognition as a potential leader, not just that you are successful in your current role.

For OC3, your proposed four commercial examples could potentially give you a good range of evidence because they show impact across different markets and propositions. However, make sure each example relates to a product-led digital technology company and demonstrates your own significant commercial contribution to the digital technology field, rather than simply showing that your marketing generated commercial results. I would be careful, though, about treating four examples of commercial performance as four separate proofs of significant contribution. The assessor is likely to look at what you
personally did, the scale of the outcome, and whether the evidence independently demonstrates that connection. Dashboards showing investment amounts, customers or conversion rates establish the outcome, but they do not necessarily establish that the outcome was caused by your work. Your role/ownership evidence therefore needs to sit closely alongside the relevant commercial result.

The WhatsApp conversation and external partner email can potentially provide useful corroboration, particularly because they are outside your own company’s reporting system. The press coverage can establish that the company/product achieved a particular outcome or market position, but if it does not name you, it is unlikely by itself to establish your individual contribution. You would need to connect the external achievement to your role through other evidence.

For OC1, the regulatory process innovation sounds more directly connected to the innovation criterion than simply showing successful campaigns. The strongest version would demonstrate the original problem created by the regulatory change, the specific process you designed, what was genuinely new about your approach, and measurable improvement after implementation. The fact that the method was subsequently adapted for the US could add useful evidence of the approach being applied beyond the original situation, but it should remain clear what you personally innovated.

I would also be cautious about press coverage of the product launches. It can help establish that the launches were significant or first-to-market, but if the articles only mention the CEO/region head and not you, they are primarily evidence of the company’s achievement. Internal approvals with your name can help connect you to the launch, but approval of marketing materials is different from proving that you led the underlying launch strategy.

One other point: I would avoid trying to prove MC through too many separate statements such as “I led across three countries”, “I was a one-person team”, “I attended strategy meetings”, etc. Those can be supporting facts, but the application will be stronger if the evidence tells a clear story: what you
owned → what you changed/introduced → what happened commercially → how your
organisation or senior leaders recognised your contribution. The same principle applies to OC3. The current evidence rules require at least 4 evidence documents covering 2 of the other necessary skills, with 2 documents supporting each skill. You therefore have
room to select the strongest evidence rather than trying to make every activity carry equal weight.

Overall, I’d say the proposed evidence has potentially relevant components for MC, OC1 and OC3, but the main area I would scrutinize before submitting is attribution: whether an assessor can move from “the company generated/raised/acquired X” to “this happened materially because of this applicant’s specific work.” That distinction is particularly important for a marketing/growth profile where many commercial outcomes naturally involve multiple teams.

8

Hi Akash and Noddy,

Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate the time spent on reviewing my ask.

I have a few more questions. For MC criteria, what attributes should be present in the external reference? Can the person be an investor, backed by famous funds, in the sector and companies that are built upon technology? Is it a good idea that the person should be UK national, or that doesn’t matter? In the innovation, if the process is replicated across different teams, is it enough?

@Noddy Thanks for sharing so much detail. It is very helpful.

@Raphael Do you want to share some feedback?

And one more thing, if I want more feedback after I’ve prepared the application, Should I paste it here with all the attachments?

Thanks

9

The strongest external referee is someone independent of your employer who is recognised in the sector themselves and can speak to your standing, not just your results. An investor backed by well-known funds can work, as long as the letter explains how they know your work directly and why they rate you as an emerging leader, rather than simply confirming they invested in a company you marketed. A senior name giving generic praise adds little.

Nationality of the referee doesn’t matter. The assessor weighs their credibility and standing in the digital technology sector, and whether they can independently vouch for your personal contribution. A recognised figure based anywhere carries more weight than a UK national with no sector profile.

Replication across your own internal teams helps show the method wasn’t a one-off, but it still sits inside your company, so by itself it doesn’t establish that the work was novel. What lifts it is adoption or recognition beyond your own organisation, with the before and after metric attached.

10

Hi @uselessperson,

Trust you’re okay. On your evidence:

For MC, "Demonstrate that work during the last two to three years contributed to fintech’s commercial success across the UK, USA…"you need to be mindful because “commercials” refer to a company’s financial gain from solving a sector problem. So you can’t say you contributed to the commercial success of the sector. What you should say is that you marketed, promoted, or distributed a product or solution that solved a sector problem, and you can evidence that through user adoption and sales. Also, MC is not about contribution, it’s about leadership. You led the sales or marketing of a product that solved a sector problem. Your organisation’s money and growth are internal, but the problem the product solved is what impacts the sector. On the evidence: appreciation emails are like reference letters, someone with oversight attesting to what you did but they’re not sufficient. Can you show emails that demonstrate what you actually did? For example, internal conversations showing you led the marketing, emails where you were reporting or presenting achievements during monthly performance reviews, correspondence with external marketing platforms, or those natural day to day things that happened while you were doing the work. So, your salary increase, reference letters are not sufficient evidence to show how you led the growth of a company.

Screenshots of internal appraisals are still attestation and these things can be easily arranged. But activities around what you did come more naturally, like representing your company in a media interview or exhibition. Or an email from an executive asking you to meet your accountant or bank to update them on country wide sales. These kinds of things demonstrate that you were in charge, not people simply claiming it through internal letters or emails, which are usually seen as self authored.

On your screenshots of global growth slides, if it’s a picture or video of you presenting, that can be useful. But if it’s just a slide, then no. For the email invite, it can be useful depending on the content and whether it was sent from an official company email, not a public one like Gmail.

An organisation’s organogram with just departments or roles won’t show leadership unless your name is on it and you can support it with your picture on the team page as the marketing manager/lead. Your number 1, 2, and 3 listings for MC are all about sales, marketing, and leadership (strategy level). These are unique and should be listed as one MC evidence. The Tech Nation guide is clear that evidence must be unique, and you need at least two unique pieces of evidence for each criterion.

For OC3, it’s not impact first, it’s contribution. In your case, commercial contribution. Impact is what happens because of the contribution. Also, this needs to be done in a product‑led company.

To show contribution here, you need to clearly demonstrate how you used your sales strategy to drive sales, user adoption, and entry into new markets. As a marketer or sales expert, you don’t design strategies to acquire investors. Investors are interested in the product’s potential or success, and you can show that through sales. So, show how your strategy brought huge sales and how that attracted investors. Investors invest for equity, and it’s a known fact that they invest in companies that have succeeded or have the potential to succeed. No investor will invest just because of a sale strategy maybe angel investors, but not proper institutional ones that Tech Nation will respect.

Nurture and campaign boards can show your strategy, and the amount raised can validate that your sales strategy worked to attract investors. Just like posts on LinkedIn or other social media, WhatsApp messages are dismissed. Media clips that don’t mention your name will be dismissed. For clips, you need to be mentioned to show ownership of your claim. Your evidence on UK real estate will be dismissed as real estate is mostly not product‑led.

Commercial impact on US Fund, you need to show what you did first before showing the result. What you did is the contribution. Just showing changes in investment amounts or number of investors only shows the output. Tech Nation wants to see the input (your contribution) that led to the result(impact).

An external partner confirming your role through an email can be useful, but things like that don’t really happen in big and serious companies. For example, if a partner invested in Payme Co and said, “I invested because of Raphael’s role” in an email. Yes! You can be his account officer, and he will invest in the product you market to him and not invest because of your role. Also, were you doing fundraising? Why is a partner giving support funds? That’s not how companies raise funds. There are administrative processes, mostly involving lawyers, through IPOs, and funding rounds or through VC application process. Evidence like this will be termed self‑authored.

For OC1, some evidence is simply not suitable for certain types of applicants. OC1 is one of them for roles like product managers or sales experts. It’s almost impossible to show innovation as a result of what we do. Tech Nation will not take innovating campaigns seriously for OC1, to be honest. Re engineering a process that focuses on identifying something is process improvement, not innovation. Press clippings that don’t name you will be dismissed as company success.

Here is my candid opinion, going by recent feedback, you still have some work to do. It appears to me that you’re trying to present your evidence to fit the criteria. To increase your chances, give yourself some time to work on more evidence that properly aligns with the guidance and your narrative.

You said:

Please feel free to criticize…

I personally don’t criticise, but give constructive, useful and experienced based feedback.

All the best.