According to guidelines technical applicants from non technical companies are eligible. However the endorsement body’s feedback is completely opposite of this statement

Hello all,

I have received my rejection letter yesterday.

The decision letter says I am an applicant from non technical company(the first revenue source is not technology) therefore I have failed on MC and OC3. When I check the guideline, the exact statement is below

“ 1. Technical applicants (i.e. programmers) from non-technical organisations are eligible.”

So, If this statement is true from the guideline, why did endorsement body provide the feedback conversely? I am technical applicant from non technical company evidenced by employment contract, reference letter from IT director of my company indicating the weight and impact of the work I have done plus the codes + workflows created by me to support the statements on the reference letter.

I have also rejected on OC2 indicating that my stack overflow profile is not on the level they expected. (This is because the technology stack I work has It’s own community where I am active there. I also provided stack overflow profile to solidify my evidences)

Understandable but It seems, one evidence I provided was completely ignored ( I have attended a volunteering program conducted by non profit association aiming to make advancements in the sector) I have shown my ongoing contributions ( coding discussions) on an open source project. This was also rejected because these discussions were limited ( where they demand you to provide 3 pages of evidences max) and not bringing innovation to the sector. Where does It say that OC2 is expecting innovation from the applicant?

I feel like my application was assessed not according to guidelines. I will appeal the decision but I wanted to share the feedback I received vs the guidelines

I think you can ask fir a review and point them the part of the guide that talks about typical applicants.

Thanks I will be asking for a review

1 Like