The Migration Advisory Committee's call for evidence on the Global Talent and Innovator Founder routes closed on 1 May 2026. As of 22 October 2026, the committee had not published its final report. That leaves founders in an uncomfortable position: a formal review of their route is under way, and nobody outside the committee knows what it will say.
This article does not predict the outcome. Instead, it sets out a range of possible scenarios, each clearly labelled as such, framed around the questions the call for evidence actually asked. Then it looks at how to plan in a way that holds up whichever way the review goes.
What the call for evidence asked
The best guide to what a review might cover is what it asked. According to the call for evidence, the MAC sought views on:
- experience of the route — what it is like to apply and operate on it;
- its impact on the UK;
- whether it targets the right people.
Respondent categories included endorsing bodies and individuals on Innovator Founder visas. The MAC's June 2026 minutes record its secretariat summarising roundtable evidence on both routes and the committee discussing areas for the "Talent Review".
The review sits within a wider question: how best the immigration system could be used to attract international global talent to the UK.
The context the review is working in
Several facts frame the scenarios below:
- Practitioner commentary from Free Movement reports that many specialists say these routes largely fail to work in practice, and that repeated amendments have made them harder to obtain.
- Practitioner analysis of Home Office statistics for the year ending June 2026 reports grant rates of 79.2% out-of-country and 74.8% in-country, both lower than a year earlier.
- The May 2025 Immigration White Paper reportedly said the route was under review with the objective of increasing its use and effectiveness.
- Endorsement is concentrated: three Business Endorsing Bodies, unchanged since 2024, plus the invite-only Global Entrepreneurs Programme.
These are inputs, not conclusions. The MAC may weigh them differently or find other evidence more persuasive.
Scenario A: no material recommendations for Innovator Founder
This is a possibility, not a prediction. The review could conclude that the Innovator Founder route works broadly as intended, or focus its recommendations on Global Talent.
What it would mean: the current rules continue. Endorsement, the 70-point test, contact point meetings and the settlement criteria stay as they are, subject to any separate change such as earned settlement.
How to prepare: nothing different. Plan on the current rules.
Scenario B: recommendations on who the route targets
This is a possibility, not a prediction. The call for evidence asked whether the route targets the right people. A review could recommend widening or narrowing the profile of founders the route is aimed at — for example, changing how "innovative, viable and scalable" is assessed, or how the route treats particular applicant groups such as recent graduates.
What it would mean: if the government acted on such a recommendation, the eligibility criteria or endorsing body assessment could change for future applicants.
How to prepare: the current test asks for a genuine, original plan meeting new or existing market needs or creating competitive advantage; a plan that is realistic and achievable given your resources; relevant skills and market awareness; and evidence of structured planning with potential for job creation and growth into national and international markets. A plan that clearly meets these is likely to be well placed under a range of possible refinements.
Scenario C: recommendations on how the route operates
This is a possibility, not a prediction. Questions about applicants' experience of the route could lead to recommendations on process — how endorsement works, the number or role of endorsing bodies, or how contact point monitoring operates.
What it would mean: changes to the endorsement or monitoring experience rather than to the core eligibility test.
How to prepare: keep your relationship with your endorsing body in good order. Under the current rules, endorsing bodies must tell the Home Office if a contact point is missed and can withdraw endorsement at any time, including after approval. Good records and regular communication are valuable whatever the process looks like.
Scenario D: recommendations linked to settlement or other routes
This is a possibility, not a prediction. Because the review is about attracting global talent, it could comment on how Innovator Founder connects to other parts of the system — for example, the transition from Student, which became possible in-country after course completion, or the route to settlement.
What it would mean: any change here would interact with other open questions, including the earned settlement proposals, which practitioner commentary reports would keep a 3-year settlement period for Innovator Founders but which have not been implemented. See Earned settlement: where it stands.
How to prepare: track your continuous residence and absences, and start building evidence for 2 of the 7 settlement growth criteria early.
How to plan under uncertainty
The scenarios share a pattern: the things within your control matter in every one of them.
| What you can control | Why it holds up across scenarios |
|---|---|
| A business plan that is innovative, viable and scalable | Central to the current test; hard to see it becoming irrelevant |
| Evidence of your role as founder | The current rules refuse applicants who are only investing |
| Timing: endorsement no more than 3 months old, permission still valid | Validity rules apply now and would need a rule change to move |
| Absence log and settlement evidence | Needed under current rules and under any likely variant |
| Regular contact with your endorsing body | They monitor you under the current model |
Avoid two common mistakes. The first is waiting: there is no published date for the report, and a current visa expiry date will not wait with you. The second is acting on a scenario as if it were decided — for example, assuming eligibility will widen and applying with a weaker plan.
To check how your plan measures against the current criteria, run a free assessment. For background on the review itself, see The MAC Talent Review and Innovator Founder.
Sources and further reading
- GOV.UK — Migration Advisory Committee
- Free Movement — MAC call for evidence on Global Talent and Innovator Founder
- GOV.UK — Innovator Founder caseworker guidance
- GOV.UK — Immigration Rules: statements of changes
- GOV.UK — Earned settlement consultation
Key takeaways
- No MAC final report had been published as of 22 October 2026; nobody outside the committee knows what it will recommend.
- The call for evidence asked about experience of the route, its impact on the UK, and whether it targets the right people.
- Possible scenarios range from no material change to recommendations on targeting, operation, or links with settlement and student routes — all possibilities, not predictions.
- MAC recommendations are advice; rule changes would need a Statement of Changes.
- The robust plan is the same in every scenario: a strong business, clean timing, good records and decisions based on the rules in force.
Know exactly where your application stands.
Get your free AI assessment in 90 seconds.
Get your assessment- migration-advisory-committee
- talent-review
- scenario-planning
- innovator-founder-visa
- policy