So does the evidence have to cover 12 months?
No — there is no published requirement that your evidence must span exactly twelve months. The boundary that is stated is different: your evidence should sit within the last five years to be treated as current. The "twelve months" idea is not a rule at all; it is a rule of thumb that experienced applicants and advisers use because it captures something real about how the Digital Technology endorsement is assessed.
That real thing is this: the assessment is a judgement about whether you are a leader or a potential leader in your field, and leadership is a pattern, not a photograph. Evidence that shows activity, contribution and recognition recurring across roughly a year of your work tells a far more convincing story than a cluster of items all dated in the weeks before you applied. It is a signal of strength, not a box to tick — and it is a judgement, not a guarantee.
Why does a sustained record read more strongly?
An assessor reading a body of evidence is asking, in effect, "is this a person whose standing in the field is durable?" A single strong moment — one conference talk, one launch, one award — answers that only partly, because it could be a peak that is not repeated. A spread of evidence over a period answers it far more fully: it shows the peak sits on a base of ongoing work.
This is why achievements described only at a single point in time can feel thin even when the achievement itself is impressive. The strongest applications weave several strands — technical contribution, external recognition, and impact — and show each appearing more than once across the year. A burst of articles and talks produced immediately before applying is a recurring pattern that assessors and advisers report as a weakness, precisely because it reads as assembled for the application rather than earned over time.
Is the five-year window the same as the year of activity?
No, and it helps to keep the two ideas separate. The five-year window is the outer boundary: items older than about five years are a recurring reason evidence is discounted, because they are no longer treated as current. The "year of activity" is the density you are aiming for inside that window — enough recent, connected activity that the record reads as sustained rather than as a single isolated event.
In practice you want both at once: evidence recent enough to be current, and spread enough to show a track record. A common error is to satisfy only one of these — for example, a large achievement from four years ago that is technically inside the window but reads as stale, or a flurry of very recent items with nothing behind them. Neither reads as strongly as a coherent run of activity across the most recent year or so, anchored by one or two standout moments. Always confirm the exact window on GOV.UK before you apply, because the criteria are updated from time to time.
How should I present a year of evidence?
You are allowed up to ten evidence documents, each up to three sides of A4, plus a CV and three recommendation letters that sit outside that count. Presentation is where the "sustained record" idea becomes practical:
- Spread the dates deliberately. When you map your ten documents, note the date attached to each. If they all cluster in one month, that is a signal to go back and surface earlier work that belongs in the story.
- Show the through-line. Order and describe the evidence so an assessor can see one strand — say, external recognition, or a recurring technical contribution — appearing at more than one point, not just once.
- Let a headline sit on a base. Keep your strongest single item, but frame it as the peak of ongoing work rather than as a standalone event.
- Use referees who saw the duration. A referee who can speak to work over time is more persuasive than one describing a single interaction, so choose people who witnessed the arc, not just a moment.
For the mechanics of building the pack itself, our evidence guide and evidence mix planner walk through how the ten documents fit together.
What is the common mistake here?
The most common mistake is treating the application as a snapshot of "now" — pulling together whatever evidence exists at the moment of applying, all freshly dated, with no depth behind it. This is understandable: people decide to apply, then scramble to assemble proof. But thin, recent-only evidence is one of the weaknesses assessors and advisers report most often, because it reads as manufactured for the application rather than as a record of a career.
The fix is rarely to invent new activity. More often it is to reconstruct a record that already exists but has not been documented — recovering earlier contributions, older recognition and past impact that were simply never gathered up. If your recent-only evidence feels thin, our guide on reconstructing evidence is a good place to start, and the distinction in individual impact versus company success matters just as much across the whole period.
Not sure your evidence reads as sustained?
A £200 Fit Assessment scores your record component by component and shows exactly where it looks thin — credited to any package within 14 days.
How does the £200 assessment help with this?
The Fit Assessment is built precisely to catch the "thin and recent-only" weakness before it costs you the government fees. It scores your profile out of twenty, breaks it down by component — the mandatory criterion, the four optional criteria, your letters, your documentation and an integrity-risk adjuster — and produces a ten-document evidence plan that flags where your record is too shallow or too concentrated in time.
If the assessment shows your evidence clusters into a short recent burst, you see that plainly, with a plan to broaden it, before you commit £766 in government fees plus the Immigration Health Surcharge. The £200 is credited in full against any package you go on to buy within 14 days, and includes a 45-minute review call to walk through the report live. If you later want us to build the record with you, End-to-End Writing (£4,500) includes one free reattempt support if the outcome goes against you. We do not guarantee endorsement — no honest adviser can — but we do make sure the evidence is not failing on a weakness this well understood.
Frequently asked questions
No. There is no published rule that evidence must span exactly twelve months. The stated boundary is that evidence should sit within the last five years. However, assessors look for a sustained record rather than a single moment, so a body of activity spanning around a year of your work reads far more strongly than a short recent burst. Verify the current criteria on GOV.UK.
Evidence should generally fall within the last five years to be considered current. Items outside that window are a recurring reason evidence is discounted. The practical target is a record that is both recent enough to be current and sustained enough to show a pattern, not a one-off. Always confirm the window on GOV.UK before applying.
A single strong achievement helps, but on its own it can read as a one-off. Assessors tend to look for a track record: contributions, recognition and impact that recur across a period rather than a single peak. Pairing a headline achievement with a spread of supporting activity over around a year is far more convincing than one item standing alone.
The three recommendation letters sit outside the ten-document evidence count, but the same principle applies: a referee who can speak to sustained work over time carries more weight than one describing a single interaction. Letters that describe an ongoing professional relationship read as more credible than letters based on a brief or one-off engagement.
Related reading: evidence (10 documents), recommendation letter rules, does GitHub count as evidence?, who can be a referee, individual impact vs company success and the pain points hub.
Last updated: 6 July 2026. Facts verified against GOV.UK on 6 July 2026 — always verify the current criteria before applying.