Request for Full Review of Global Talent Evidence Pack + 30-Minute Review Call

Stage 1
1

Hi All

I hope you’re well. I’m preparing my final submission for the UK Global Talent Visa (Digital Technology – Exceptional Talent) and would appreciate a structured, end-to-end review of my full evidence pack before submission.

Below is a concise summary of the reference letters and evidences I plan to submit , along with the criteria they are intended to support. I’d specifically value your assessment on strength, clarity, duplication risk, and any gaps that may weaken the overall case.

In addition to written feedback, I would also find it extremely helpful to walk through the evidence pack on a short 30-minute call , if possible, to sanity-check alignment against the criteria and confirm whether the overall narrative reads clearly and safely from an assessor’s perspective.

Reference Letters (Primary Anchors)

1. Teradata UK – Enterprise Digital Technology
MC2 / MC4 anchor

  • Confirms senior-level product and delivery leadership within a global, product-led digital technology company
  • Covers commercial impact, enterprise cloud data platforms, and leadership in regulated environments
  • Anchors recognition, scale, and technical/commercial credibility

2. Arthur Lawrence – Product Management Leadership
MC1 / MC4 anchor

  • Validates product leadership across complex client environments
  • Highlights innovation, decision-making authority, and delivery ownership
  • Reinforces senior operating level and cross-industry impact

3. Comsoft Computer Consultants – IP & Innovation
OC1 anchor

  • Focuses on intellectual property, innovation-led contributions, and product thinking
  • Supports innovation beyond routine delivery responsibilities

Mandatory Criteria Evidence (3)

MC Evidence 1 – Teradata: Senior Product & Delivery Impact

  • Leadership of large-scale enterprise cloud and data initiatives
  • Ownership of outcomes, governance frameworks, and executive stakeholder engagement
  • Demonstrates recognition as a senior contributor within digital technology

MC Evidence 2 – Teradata: High Salary / Market Recognition

  • Salary and compensation positioned significantly above market benchmarks
  • Used as an external signal of seniority, demand, and recognised value

MC Evidence 3 – Suade Hackathon or Media (Ilaan)

  • Recognition through innovation initiatives (hackathon participation and/or external media coverage)
  • Demonstrates industry visibility and contribution beyond core role delivery

Optional Criteria Evidence (4)

OC1 – Propway (Product-Led Innovation)

  • Development and scaling of digital product features
  • Measurable commercial and adoption impact

OC1 – SKANS (EdTech / Digital Product Contribution)

  • Innovation in learning platforms and digital programme design
  • Product thinking applied outside traditional commercial tech environments

OC2 – Mind Works / STARS / Publications

  • Work beyond occupation: digital skills, mentoring, and community impact
  • Contribution to advancement of the field through education and capability building

OC2 – Supporting Publications / Content*

  • Evidence of thought leadership, knowledge sharing, or public contribution
  • Reinforces sector engagement beyond employment duties

What I’d Like Help With

  • Whether each criterion is clearly and independently met
  • Any weak or overlapping evidence that should be removed or replaced
  • Gaps where impact, recognition, or innovation could be strengthened
  • Overall narrative clarity: does the pack clearly show already-operating exceptional talent , not potential
  • Confirmation on whether the evidence balance feels safe for submission

My aim is a clean, defensible submission that reads clearly to an assessor and avoids interpretation risk.

Please let me know if this scope works for you, and whether a 30-minute review call could be arranged alongside written feedback.

Many thanks,
Mahvash Khan

1 Like
2

Hi @Mahvash_Feroze feel free to reach out for application review if you are looking for professional help - this is paid and might not be done in 30 mins considering the length and depth of the nature of application.

Overall on your application outline:

  1. Your MC strength depends on industry recognition of your work at Teradata and track record and quality of media coverage. Only participation in hackathons doesn’t count and salary evidence is not usually considered strong.
  2. In OC1, need to demonstrate what was innovative, your contribution, proof of product in market, associated traction and attribution of innovation and traction specifically to your contribution beyond self claims.
  3. In OC2. Mentorship is only valid if it’s part of a structured program with clear evidence of program structure and impact on advancement of field beyond self claims. Quality of thought leadership, its track record and channels used is important.
1 Like
3

How can we verify the Quality of thought leadership, its track record and channels used in OC2

4

Hi @Mahvash_Feroze

If an individual’s work is validated by reputable external platforms, organizations, or recognized individuals, and demonstrates measurable impact, sector contribution, and recognition, it establishes their credibility and thought leadership.

For instance

A YouTube channel featuring qualitative educational content with 2+ million total views, 5,000 subscribers, 500,000+ comments, and 5 million likes clearly demonstrates impact and audience engagement.

Receiving YouTube Creator Awards as a result of this reach reflects formal recognition from a globally reputable platform and organization (YouTube).

If the channel’s focus is AI and Cybersecurity, specifically helping individuals transition into tech, this constitutes a meaningful contribution to the sector by empowering and upskilling others.

Together, these elements form a strong narrative that positions the individual as a recognized subject-matter expert and thought leader within their domain.

This illustration clearly shows quality of thought leadership.

2 Likes