The work with company a hows the normal work of a developer and nothing provided
stands out as exceptional in nature. The work with company b is noble but the details provided do not
show any significant technical, commercial or entrepreneurial contributions to the field. OC3 is not
met.
is my normal duties not technical contribution as a software engineer ?
Hi @tunde1234
Normal duties are contribution but they aren’t considered significant because they are simply your job requirements that you do to be at your job. In OC3, they want to see significant contributions that have had a quantified impact on company’s core metrics which is what makes the contribution noteworthy.
Even if you state that in your evidence, you still need third-party validation. Without being a founder
Yes without third party evidence everything is self claim in which anyone can claim anything.
@tunde1234 Trust you’re okay.
From my years of experience, I think lots of applicants don’t understand what is required for OC3. Most list or present a narrative of a normal developer duties and these are not considered a technical, commercial or entrepreneurial contribution to the field. Many focus only on the company, but the real emphasis is the field. Your contribution can be demonstrated through a company as an employee, but the impact must be relevant to the wider tech sector.
And here is how Tech Nation puts it
How do I demonstrate that I have made a significant technical, commercial or entrepreneurial contribution to the field as a founder, senior executive, board member or employee of a product‑led digital technology company?
Your job title, your responsibilities, or the fact that you wrote code is not enough. From my experience, I believe they want to see that your work introduced innovation, solved a complex technical problem, or created something that didn’t exist before and is now adopted or influential. For instance, if you built an internal analytics platform that reduced data processing time from hours to minutes, and that improvement enabled your company to deliver real time insights that competitors later adopted or is being used, that’s sector level impact. It’s not about routine developer tasks, it’s about creating innovation, efficiency or capabilities that influence how similar products or teams in your industry operate.
Another relatable example, I understand that most applicants don’t work on globally known products, please permit me, for the sake of illustration. A software engineer at DocuSign can show how their technical contribution solves a broader industry problem, e‑signing, workflow automation, compliance, etc. As you can see, the point isn’t the job title or the feature list, it’s the innovative solution and its relevance to the wider sector, demonstrated through the company’s product.
Another issue I see is how applicants present their evidence. Many simply list features, mention their roles, attach GitHub screenshoots, links, diagrams, and a reference letter praising their skills. That’s not enough. Most applicants I guided who got endorsed with OC3 clearly explain the problem, what they specifically contributed, the impact, and then back it up with externally validated evidence, metrics, screenshots of code, links, architectural documents, product analytics, or/and letter from an executive now attributing the commercial success to their technical contributions.
All the best.
thanks i see now like a problem statement and solutions you did
Hello. I am struggling to put the details within 3 pages. A decent architecture diagram will take up almost half a page. As URLs may not be opened by the assessor, I want to understand the optimal ways of handling evidences within 3 pages.
@ageorgej Trust you are okay.
Whilst there’s no official standard arrangement layout, the priority is always clarity and should not exceed 3 pages. If an assessor has to strain to read your evidence, the evidence begins lose its strength.
The best workaround is what I call the Snapshot & Deep-Dive method. Put a high quality, high level evidence screenshot first to establish the context, then provide an external link for the full breakdown or more views. Also, the high level evidence should present a substantial fact about the criterion, just incase they don’t visit the link. Also, don’t just paste the link there, make a polite request…Due to the page limit, I have attached more screenshoots, kindly view.
I would definitely recommend using Notion for external links. Since Tech Nation’s own official guide is hosted on Notion, the assessors are already comfortable with that UI. Psychologically, humans are wired to trust things that feel familiar. When the interface looks like the one they use to check the rules, it lowers their mental friction and makes them more likely to click through.
All the best.