I work in a retail company as an architect and worked for a product. I got rejected by below
XXX is a large UK retail company and is not recognised as a product-led digital company. Any documentation provided for work at this organisation is therefore not relevant to any of the criteria.
Should I work in a product led company to be eligible?
Hi @Tom Trust you are good.
As a technical applicant you can work for a non technical company like the current company you work to be eligible. However, there are some criteria that require you work not only in a technology company but a product led company. For instance
A part in MC - You led the marketing or business development at a product-led digital technology…
In OC1 - How do I demonstrate that I have a proven track record of innovation in the digital technology sector as a founder or senior executive of a product-led…
In OC3 - How do I demonstrate that I have made a significant technical, commercial or entrepreneurial contributions to the field as a founder, senior executive, board member or employee of a product-led…
So, whilst an applicant can be eligible, if they don’t work in a product-led company. The part of MC, OC1 and OC2 is not suitable for them.
But the good news is that there are other criteria hat has nothing to do with product led but the tech sector. That’s OC2 and OC4.
So, your best bet is to use MC, OC2 and OC4.
Any documentation provided for work at this organisation is therefore not relevant to any of the criteria.
Also, it’s important to note that, their response to you quoted above is most likely as relative to the criteria you submitted. Can you please confirm you used OC1 and OC3?
So sorry about the feedback. I hope this help?
All the best.
Yes I have used OC1 and OC3
Yes! So, just as I said. Based on their guidance, you are eligible for the application, but not under the criteria you selected. This is a narrative issue, which is why I always suggest that applicants review their application narrative alongside their career history.
Another approach that has worked for some successful applicants I’ve supported is to use evidence of your past roles, which are product-led, from the last five years, or reapply with OC2 and OC4.
All the best.
Thanks for the help. When I checked OC4 it’s about academic. Is it ok to get a reference letter from my professor which I completed data science in 2022. And also I don’t have any awards.
@Tom If you’re referring to a reference letter that validates or supports your research work, then yes, but it shouldn’t be based on research you completed as a student.
If you actually mean a recommendation letter, your lecturer being a professor isn’t enough on its own. They must be an established expert who has known you and your work for at least 12 months, and can speak about your impact, contributions, and achievements.
If you choose to reapply, which I believe is the better path. It’s important to get expert guidance from someone who is experienced and can support you to plan strategically. I also suggest giving yourself around six months to build stronger evidence under the new criteria so you can significantly increase your chances.
OC4 is a difficult fit here. The Guide requires research endorsed by an expert, either through peer review in a recognised publication or endorsement from a senior academic who supervised you directly, and it explicitly excludes research done as part of an undergraduate or MSc thesis. A course you finished in 2022 will not clear that bar, and a reference letter on its own is never enough to carry a criterion.
The more realistic route open to you is OC2, and it has nothing to do with whether your employer is product-led. The Guide accepts voluntary work beyond your day job that advances the sector: contributions to an open source project, structured mentorship, main-stage speaking at a sector event with 100+ attendees, or leading on policy. If any of your technical work outside the retail role fits there, it is a far stronger path than academic research.
Your refusal came down to which criteria you chose against a non-product employer, so the fix is selecting criteria that do not depend on one. MC plus OC2 is the combination worth building toward.
So I think it’s not worth appealing
@Tom You should still consider submitting an appeal, it’s free, and there’s nothing to lose by trying. It’s also important to understand that the rejection wasn’t due to an error or oversight in your evidence, but rather that the evidence didn’t fully meet the eligibility standards required.
For a reapplication, you need two Optional Criteria and one Mandatory Criterion. As I mentioned earlier, your strongest path is OC2 and OC4, along with the Mandatory Criterion or you use evidence from product led companies you have worked with that is still within the time frame five.
years.
6 months+, I believe can be okay to work on research, you can also co-author with other researchers. Most call for papers from conferences comes with conference speaking too and a research endorsement letter from a professor can also support. However, just publishing a research paper will not show sector impact. Speaking at conference, citations, downloads, views and what have we, should be evidenced and clearly shown.
Agreed with Raphael, the Appeals king 
Thanks @Raphael @Akash_Joshi for your inputs.
It’s interesting that the previous application with same company got considered last time but the issue was with the project not innovative.
Yes! This can be true. But Tech Nation is also very clear that they don’t refer back to previous applications, each one is assessed on its own merit. It also depends on when you applied, because the guidance has changed over time.
More importantly, I always encourage applicants to focus on building evidence, documents, and a narrative that aligns with the Tech Nation guidance at the time they’re applying. Past application or other people’s evidence examples can be useful for direction, but they shouldn’t be the foundation. Every application is different, and the panel looks closely at how well your narative and your evidence align with the chosen criteria.
Please find the full rejection details @Raphael @Akash_Joshi
The candidate has applied for the Global Talent Visa through the pathway of Exceptional Talent
including OC1 and OC3. We have assessed all the evidence provided but have only commented on
some. We do not endorse this application.
The three reference letters mainly speak to the candidate’s technical ability and process automation
expertise. None are from recognised leaders in the digital technology industry as most are from
large consulting firms. The letters fail to call out how the candidate has been significantly recognised
within the digital technology industry. The salary provided is slightly higher than average but it is not
substantial enough to point to exceptionality within the sector. There is no evidence provided to
show that they have been recognised as a leading talent in the digital technology sector in the last 5
years. The Mandatory Criteria is not met.
XXX is a large UK retail company and is not recognised as a product-led digital company. Any
documentation provided for work at this organisation is therefore not relevant to any of the criteria.
The AI retail innovation document shows the implementation of existing industry tools to optimise
workflow. It shows good work but there is no evidence of true innovation where the employee can be
recognised as working on a new digital field or concept. We would expect to see defensible IP or a
patent to prove innovation. The Realtime Intelligent Fraud Detection system for xxx was delivered
while consulting for xxx. The TechNation guidelines are clear that consulting and agency work do
not qualify for any of the criteria. The case study for xxx is quite basic in nature and is all self-
reported with no evidence of innovation or impact provided. OC1 is not met.
The GitHub screens provided only show activity and there is no sign of significant adoption or
measurable impact. The xxx-In xxx-Out platform shows good technical work but there is no
evidence provided to show the impact of the work that can be directly attributed to the candidate. It
was also work for a consulting and services company that is not relevant to any of the criteria. There
is no proof that they have made significant technical, commercial or entrepreneurial contributions to
the field as a founder or employee of a product-led digital technology company. OC3 is not met.
We cannot endorse this application as none of the criteria are met.
@Tom Thank you for sharing. However, can you clarify the support you need with this?
The three reference letters mainly speak to the candidate’s technical ability and process automation
expertise. None are from recognised leaders in the digital technology industry as most are from large consulting firms
All my referees are assistant directors or directors. Not sure what ghet mean by recognised leaders.
So sorry! I won’t be able to help on this without seeing the letters, what they wrote therein and their career trajectory.