Would appreciate help reviewing my evidence for stage 1

Stage 1
1

Hi, I’m a beauty tech founder, launched an app in the UK in December and have grown our user base to 500+ early users as we refine the product. I previously applied for stage 1 but got rejected and have been rebuilding my evidence to reapply in the next 6-8 months.

MC- UK Business Tech Awards - Emerging Talent Category
Founder story publication in print (Voices in the Shadows Vol 6 by Global Tech Advocates - Black women in Tech)
Article in US media (Techronicler) - Black History Month women in tech feature
Founder story article - Founderland (Pan-European media)
Women in AI Accelerator Showcase 3rd place winner ( backed by email, YouTube video and Build club’s substack post on the founders that won)
Foundervine accelerator
The Shift Programme by Inc x Paypal

OC3 - Product Management from ideation to launch of platform leading to early user acquisition and growth
Webinar training sessions empowering the beauty professionals on using tech to build their business structure
Commercial contribution: App download evidence, social media growth and reach analytics, google console analytics on website seo implementation
Community building → converting to app users

0C2 - Article contribution to the UK Business tech award news page
Women in AI mentor
Rewriting the code women in tech community mentor

I am still reselecting my referees as I am not sure I can still present reference letters from my previous referees of the application they rejected. I would appreciate some insight on if I’m on the right path and what I could double down on to strengthen my application

2

MC has two different categories mixed together. The press features and awards are recognition pieces and could work. But accelerator participation is development, and assessors consistently distinguish programme selection from sector recognition. The Official Guide’s MC examples centre on “nationally or internationally recognised prizes or awards” and “published material in professional or major trade publications.” Focus MC on the recognition pieces and drop the accelerator participation.

OC3 is the most exposed criterion. App downloads and social/web analytics are self-generated metrics. The Official Guide expects “proof of product in market and associated traction through revenue” for founder evidence. If the app has paying users or revenue, lead with that. If the commercial evidence is entirely your own dashboards, assessors will treat it as self-documentation. The webinar training sessions sit more naturally under OC2 than OC3.

OC2 needs restructuring. The article contribution belongs under MC (published material about you), not OC2. The mentorship roles can work if both programmes are structured with selection criteria and primarily in-person. The Official Guide says “online mentoring platforms (such as ADPList) are not considered sufficient” and requires a “consistent track record of mentoring” with “recognition for your personal contribution.” You need external verification from the programme organisers to back this up.

On referees: yes, you can reuse the same people. The letters need to be freshly written and dated for the new application, but there’s no rule against the same authors.

1 Like
3

@Neto

Giving yourself 6–8 months after a rejection is strategic. However, you need to learn from the mistakes so you don’t repeat history. As a beauty tech founder, which is a business role, you can be eligible for the TN application if the company is genuinely a product led digital technology company, not just a beauty startup that uses technology.

MC – UK Business Tech Awards (Emerging Talent Category): Awards are recognition elements, but you still need to demonstrate what you were awarded for. From your narrative as a founder, you still need to show how you led a team to develop a product or build a successful company that resulted in the award. Also, the UK Business Tech Awards may be dismissed because it is an open application award where anyone can apply, and it does not have strong acceptance criteria. Founder story publications may be seen as advertorial and not sector advancing. The US media article, what exactly is it about? Were you invited or approached to write it? Is it about the sector? The Black History Month “women in tech” feature is vague.

Women in AI Accelerator Showcase (3rd place winner) can support MC, but what were the selection and acceptance criteria? Can you show the specific things you did that led to winning? An email can be okay, but it depends on the context. What do you have in the YouTube video? The programme being powered by PayPal can show it is reputable. However, your involvement should be based on recognition, and you should clearly show what you did.

OC3 – Product Management is vague and will not show how you contributed technically or commercially to a product led company. You need to clearly show evidence of how you contributed as a PM. Also, your beauty tech company must itself be a product led company to meet this criterion. App downloads, social media growth, and reach analytics are not product manage’sr responsibilities or artefacts. Business Founder and Product Manager, both are non technical skills will weaken your narrative. A Technical Founder is more strategic, one will be able to show technical contributions and also talk about commercial in this use case. The webinar training will not show the kind of the contribution TN are looking for. It will also not work in OC2, because it was done within your startup.

OC2 – Article contribution to the UK Business Tech Awards news page is weak and will also show that the award was not a result of you being recognised for what you did, but rather due to your collaboration or involvement. “Women in AI mentor” is vague — what exactly are you presenting as evidence?

You can use the same people for your letters if the rejection feedback did not fault their relationship with you, their industry position, or what they wrote about you. If the issue was their relationship to you or their sector level, then you should not use them again. But if the problem was the content or context of the letter, you can guide them to write a stronger one that addresses the gaps.

Overall, I think you need to start by reviewing your last rejection, work on your narrative, and study the Tech Nation guidance properly. Your listing is weak and misaligned.

All the best.

1 Like
4

From what you’ve shared, you’re definitely moving in the right direction. Your mix of founder activity, accelerator programmes, media features, and early product traction is a solid base, especially for a reapplication.

For the Mandatory Criterion, your awards, founder publications, accelerator participation, and media features are helpful, but try to ensure they demonstrate recognition for you or your product rather than just participation. If your app continues to grow over the next 6–8 months, stronger traction metrics such as active users, retention, partnerships, revenue, testimonials, and customer impact would make your founder story much more compelling. However, remember that Tech Nation places greater weight on independent recognition than participation alone. Where possible, demonstrate why you or your product were selected, the competitiveness of the program or award, and the significance of the recognition. As your product matures, continue to build evidence of market validation through metrics such as user growth, active users, retention, customer testimonials, commercial partnerships, revenue (if applicable), media recognition, and industry endorsements.

Your OC3 appears well aligned, provided you clearly demonstrate that you led the product from ideation to launch and can evidence measurable commercial impact. Focus on outcomes rather than activities. For OC2, mentoring and contributing to the wider tech ecosystem fit the criterion well. Just make sure your evidence shows genuine impact, such as the scale of your mentoring, feedback from mentees, or the reach of your articles and community work.

Regarding your referees, there is no rule preventing you from using the same referees again if they remain appropriate. If your existing referees continue to know your work well and hold suitable senior positions within the digital technology ecosystem, they may still act as referees. However, if your profile has evolved significantly since your previous application, updated letters that reflect your latest achievements are generally stronger than simply reusing old ones. Good luck.