One of the most common questions I get from people preparing a Tech Nation endorsement application is some version of: I have this, this, and this, is that enough? And the honest answer, more often than not, is: not yet.
The reason is not that the activities are wrong. It is that most people think of evidence as a list of things they have done, when Tech Nation is looking for a body of work that demonstrates sustained recognition across multiple independent sources. Those are very different things.
Here is how I think about evidence volume before I would recommend anyone submit.
First, what counts as an "activity"? Throughout this post, an "activity" or "recognition point" means one discrete piece of externally verifiable evidence: a conference talk you were invited to give, a published article about you or your work, a competition or award you won, a mentorship role at a named accelerator, a panel you were invited to sit on, an advisory board seat, a policy paper you contributed to, a peer-reviewed publication. One event, one recognition, one thing an assessor can verify independently.
How many evidence documents do you need per criterion?
A Tech Nation endorsement application is built around the Mandatory Criteria and two Optional Criteria. For each criterion you are arguing, you want a minimum of three evidence documents. Not three activities mentioned across your personal statement and letters. Three separate, distinct evidence pieces, each presented as its own document.
Why three specifically? Because for a criterion to pass, assessors need to say a clear yes to at least two of your documents. Not a maybe. Not a partial credit. Two documents they can unambiguously accept.
If you submit two documents and one is borderline, or one contains a formatting issue, or one turns out not to meet the criteria in the way you expected, you have nothing left. You needed both to pass and one did not make it. Criterion failed.
If you submit three, you have a margin. One can be questioned, disputed, or fall short, and you still have two solid ones standing. That is why three is the floor.
It also means the two that need to pass have to be genuinely strong, independently verifiable, and clearly relevant to the criterion. Submitting three weak documents does not help. The goal is three strong documents so that even if one is challenged, two are beyond doubt.
What goes inside each document
Each evidence document can be up to three pages. That three-page limit is not a constraint to work around by compressing content onto a single page. It is space to present one coherent piece of evidence clearly. If content is not legible, it cannot be assessed.
The practical approach for most criteria: group related activities within a single document where they are genuinely connected. Three conference appearances can sit in one document. Three publications can sit in another. Three pieces of press coverage from different outlets in a third. Each document presents a cluster of evidence for one type of recognition, not a collage of unrelated screenshots.
Two exceptions worth knowing before you start building your documents.
Exception 1: OC3 works differently
For Optional Criteria 3, each document covers one project, one product, or one body of work in detail. Not three grouped together. One. The three pages are used to explain what you specifically did, what decisions you made, what the results were, and what the measurable impact was. The assessor needs to read that document and attribute a specific commercial, technical, or entrepreneurial contribution to you personally. That requires space and detail, not a cluster of items.
Exception 2: Evidence documents can include letters
Beyond the three mandatory reference letters, you can add up to two further supporting letters embedded within specific evidence documents, giving five letters in total across your endorsement application. These work best when they directly corroborate the specific evidence in that same document, adding independent external confirmation of what is being claimed rather than general praise repeated from the main letters.
How many activities does a complete Tech Nation portfolio contain?
Most people underestimate how much a complete endorsement application actually requires. When you work through it properly, a solid Tech Nation submission involves roughly 20 to 22 distinct activities or recognition points. That is not a number I invented. It is what I see in applications that get endorsed.
Here is how you get there. Tech Nation allows a maximum of 10 evidence documents. The minimum needed to pass is 6: two documents per criterion across your three criteria. Assessors need to say a clear yes to at least two documents for each criterion.
In practice I recommend clients submit 9 documents, adding one extra per criterion as a safety margin so that if one is questioned, you still have two solid ones standing. That leaves one spare slot within the 10 document limit.
Each of those 9 documents contains multiple activities. With three activities per document across most criteria, you are looking at 27 in theory. Then you account for the exceptions: OC3 documents each cover one project in depth rather than three grouped activities, and some document slots are used for supporting letters rather than activity clusters.
Once those are factored in, 20 to 22 is the realistic number of distinct activities a strong endorsement application contains.
The portfolio maths
| Documents allowed (maximum) | 10 |
| Documents I typically prepare with a client (with safety margin) | 9 |
| Minimum needed to pass (2 per criterion) | 6 |
| Activities per document (most criteria) | 3 |
| OC3 documents | 1 project each |
| Total activities in a strong application | 20–22 |
When you lay it out that way, the gap between where most people are when they first come to me and where they need to be becomes obvious quickly. A handful of speaking engagements, a couple of publications, and some press coverage is a starting point, not a complete portfolio.
What counts as strong Tech Nation evidence?
More evidence does not automatically mean better evidence. Tech Nation is specifically looking for independent, third-party verifiable recognition. Self-authored content, internal documents, and letters that repeat what your personal statement already says do not add to the count in any meaningful way.
The activities that build a strong portfolio are ones where someone outside your immediate network made a decision to recognise you: a conference that invited you to speak, a publication that selected your work, a competition you won, a panel you were asked to join. Each of those is external signal. Each one adds to the picture of sustained recognition that Tech Nation is looking for.
Activities that feel like evidence but often are not:
- Publishing your own articles on Medium, LinkedIn, or personal blogs, written by you and hosted by you
- Webinars and online panels you organised or were invited to through your immediate professional network
- Internal metrics and dashboards that have not been independently verified
- Open source projects with minimal external engagement, low star counts, few downloads, no external contributors
How to know if your Tech Nation portfolio is ready
Instead of asking "do I have enough evidence," the more useful question is: if a Tech Nation assessor looked at everything I am submitting, could they trace a pattern of sustained, independent recognition of me as a technology leader across the last three to five years?
If the honest answer is no, or not clearly, the endorsement application is not ready. Not because you are not talented or have not done interesting work. Because the portfolio does not yet tell that story in a way an assessor can verify.
What to do if you are not there yet
Build with the guidelines in mind, but build for your career, not for the endorsement application. Awards are worth pursuing regardless of the visa. Speaking at major conferences is worth pursuing regardless of the visa. Publications in top-tier outlets are worth pursuing regardless. If you orient your next 12 to 18 months around activities that are genuinely good for your professional development and happen to align with Tech Nation criteria, the portfolio will follow.
What I would not recommend is trying to produce evidence specifically for the purpose of the application in a compressed timeframe. Assessors have seen this many times and they flag it. A conference you spoke at last month, a publication you submitted three months ago, and an award you applied for six weeks before submitting all look very different to a pattern of recognition built over years.
Before you submit: evidence checklist
- You have a minimum of three evidence documents for each criterion you are arguing
- Each document is clearly presented within the three-page limit, not compressed or collaged
- Your evidence covers a span of time, not a cluster of recent activity
- Each piece of evidence reflects independent, third-party recognition, not self-authored content
- You can point to at least 20 to 30 distinct activities or recognition points across your full endorsement submission
- Open source contributions have meaningful external engagement metrics
- Financial and company evidence has been independently verified, not self-prepared only
- Your personal statement and letters add context and connection, not just repetition of what the evidence already shows