Tech Nation endorsement is decided on the strength of your evidence, not the volume of it. A focused set of well-attributed documents beats ten thin ones every time. This guide explains what the ten documents are, which criterion each should support, and how to present them. It is general information about the Digital Technology route and not legal advice.
How many evidence documents can I submit?
You can include up to ten pieces of evidence. There is no minimum, and you are not penalised for submitting fewer — what matters is that each document clearly supports a criterion and shows what you did. Each piece is typically capped at three pages, so treat space as scarce: lead with the source and date, then the proof point.
What counts as strong evidence?
The assessors look for evidence that is external (produced or recognised by someone other than you), verifiable (they can confirm it), and which isolates your individual contribution. Within those rules, useful evidence types include:
- Proof of salary, equity or commercial impact — revenue, ARR, user growth or adoption you drove.
- Product or architecture leadership artefacts showing decisions you owned.
- Press coverage in major outlets that names you or your work.
- Awards or recognition from credible bodies.
- Invitations to speak or judge at significant events.
- Significant open-source contributions, backed by metrics (stars, downloads, dependents, adoption).
- Patents and peer-reviewed publications.
- Evidence of mentoring or community contribution selected on merit.
How do I map evidence to the criteria?
Each document should point at one criterion and be unambiguous about why it belongs there. The table below pairs common evidence types with the criterion they best support and what turns each from acceptable into strong.
| Evidence type | Supports | What makes it strong |
|---|---|---|
| Salary / equity / commercial impact (revenue, ARR, users) | Mandatory · OC2 | Strong Independent figures (board pack, investor deck, payslip) tied to your decisions |
| Product / architecture leadership artefacts | Mandatory · OC3 | Strong Named ownership, dated, with measurable outcome |
| Press coverage in major outlets | OC1 · OC2 | Strong Reputable masthead that names you, not a press release |
| Awards / recognition from credible bodies | OC1 | Strong Selective, independent body; you are the named recipient |
| Invitations to speak / judge at significant events | OC1 · OC3 | Good Recognised event; invitation (not self-submission) |
| Significant open-source contributions | OC3 · OC4 | Good Real adoption metrics; your role clearly identified |
| Patents | OC1 · OC4 | Strong Granted or filed; you are a named inventor |
| Peer-reviewed publications | OC4 | Strong Reputable venue; your authorship and contribution clear |
| Mentoring / community contribution | OC1 · OC3 | Good Selected on merit; impact you can evidence |
Criteria framework per GOV.UK: Global Talent visa — Digital technology. Confirm current criteria and document limits before you apply.
How should I allocate the 10 documents?
Don't spread evidence thinly across every criterion. A clean structure is to spend roughly three documents on the Mandatory Criterion and three to four on your two strongest optional criteria, holding a couple in reserve for a third optional area only if they are genuinely strong. Every document should be uniquely attributed to one criterion — if a piece could plausibly sit under three headings, it is probably too generic to be persuasive anywhere.
| Criterion | Documents | Example evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Mandatory Criterion | ~3 | Salary/impact proof, leadership artefact, senior reference with external corroboration |
| Strongest optional (e.g. OC2) | ~2–3 | Commercial-impact figures, press naming you |
| Second optional (e.g. OC4) | ~2 | Peer-reviewed publication, patent or significant open-source work |
| Reserve / third optional | ~1–2 | Award, speaking invitation — only if genuinely strong |
See the full criteria breakdown in our endorsement criteria guide, and pair this with strong recommendation letters and a focused personal statement.
What weak evidence gets applications refused?
Most evidence-related refusals are predictable. The pattern is evidence that cannot be verified, cannot be attributed to you, or proves the same point repeatedly.
- Self-published or internal-only material with no external corroboration (your own blog, internal decks, screenshots).
- Team achievements with no proof of your role — a great company outcome that never shows what you personally did.
- Overlapping evidence where several documents all prove the same single thing, wasting your ten slots.
- Undated or old documents — assessors cannot weigh evidence they cannot place in time.
For the wider picture of why applications fail, see success rate & rejection reasons, and check role fit on who qualifies.
How should I present each document?
Within the ~3-page limit, make the first lines do the heavy lifting: state the source, the date, and one sentence on what it proves about you. Highlight the figures or named references that carry the point, and cut everything that does not. Where a document is in another language, include a translation. Consistency of formatting across all ten makes the set easier to assess — which works in your favour.
Frequently asked questions
You may submit up to ten pieces of evidence. There is no minimum number, but each piece should be deliberately chosen to support a specific criterion. Quality and clear individual attribution matter far more than reaching ten.
Each piece of evidence is typically a maximum of three pages. Keep documents concise: lead with the source, the date and what it proves about your individual contribution, and avoid padding.
Strong evidence is external and verifiable, recent, and clearly shows your individual contribution. Examples include proof of salary or commercial impact, press in major outlets, awards from credible bodies, invitations to speak or judge, significant open-source work with metrics, patents and peer-reviewed publications.
Yes. Significant open-source contributions can be strong evidence when backed by metrics such as stars, downloads, dependent projects or adoption by known organisations, and when they clearly identify your role rather than the whole project.
Yes, provided it is verifiable externally and isolates your individual contribution. Internal-only documents with no external corroboration are weak; pair work-based achievements with external proof such as press, customer references or independent metrics.
Evidence should ideally be from recent years and every document should be dated. Older achievements can be included if they remain significant, but a portfolio weighted toward current, datable work is far more persuasive.
Last updated 1 June 2026. Always confirm current evidence limits and criteria on GOV.UK before applying.