Hi Team,
I applied in 2024 with negative result trying to apply again. Since the process has changed a lot, thought checking before i send email. I am sending 15 docs as attachment is that all, or am i missing anything?
Checklist
CV
3 Recommendation letter
4 MC evidences
3 OC2 evidences
3 OC3 evidences
overall 15 docs?
Plus want to know impact of having supporting letter in evidences from 2024, a few letters I couldn’t get resigned with new dates.
Thanks
Old letters from your 2024 attempt are usable in principle, but they carry credibility risk. Assessors read supporting letters as active endorsements, not archival material. A referee who couldn’t be reached to update the date signals they may not be as engaged with your work today as when they first wrote it, and that framing dilutes the strength of the endorsement regardless of what the letter actually says.
For the ones you couldn’t re-date, worth asking whether they’d send a short refreshed paragraph acknowledging your recent work. Even a single paragraph appended to the original, dated now, changes how the letter reads. If a referee genuinely can’t be reached, better to substitute than to include a stale letter that raises the question in the reviewer’s mind.
Your MC/OC counts meet the “at least 2” and “at least 4” minimums in the Guide, so the totals aren’t the issue. Worth asking whether every piece pulls its weight though. If any of the 4 MC pieces is weaker than the others, cutting it strengthens the bundle rather than dilutes it. Panel feedback consistently notes that assessors weight the strongest pieces heaviest, so padding to hit a number rarely helps a resubmission.
Thanks, can dec 2025 be considered recent, I was hoping yes 
Hi @ankit_gam
The list looks quite thorough. The total documents aligns with the usual Tech Nation structure (CV, 3 recommendation letters, and 10 evidences across MC, OC2, and OC3).
However, regarding your question about supporting letters dated from 2024, it’s important to note that old letters are not suitable because Tech Nation requires current and verifiable evidence that reflects your recent professional standing and achievements. Letters older than 12 months may raise concerns about whether the endorsers still hold the same view of your work or whether your contributions remain relevant. Updated dates and signatures confirm authenticity and ensure the assessors can trust the timeline of your evidence.
Old dated letters will be flagged, so I suggest you get newly written and signed letters.
All the best
The 15-document count can be correct based on the structure you’ve listed: CV + 3 recommendation letters + 4 MC + 3 OC2 + 3 OC3. However, I’d check the current application guidance and page/document limits before submitting, as the process and evidence requirements have changed since 2024.
.More importantly, make sure each piece of evidence is mapped clearly to the relevant criterion and complies with the current guidance. The number of documents is not what determines the strength of the application; the quality, relevance, independence and measurable impact of the evidence are much more important.
Regarding the supporting letters from 2024, I would be cautious about simply reusing them. A letter does not necessarily become invalid purely because it was signed in 2024, but you need to check whether it still satisfies the current requirements and whether it accurately supports the claims you are making in this new application. If the underlying circumstances, role, achievements or relationship with the referee have changed, an old letter may be considerably less useful.
If a referee genuinely cannot provide a newly dated or re-signed letter, you could potentially retain the older supporting letter where it remains relevant and compliant, but I would not assume that the previous letter will automatically be accepted simply because it was used in your 2024 application.
Most importantly, because this is a reapplication following a negative decision, I would strongly recommend working from the 2024 refusal/decision letter. The new application should not simply reproduce the previous evidence. You should identify exactly why the previous application was unsuccessful and demonstrate how the new application addresses those weaknesses with stronger, newer, or better-supported evidence.