Advice on Exceptional Promise Application - UX researcher

Stage 1
1

UX researcher turned human–AI interaction risk practitioner with 6+ years experience in early-stage startups. Previously part of a new business building team in consulting, where I helped launch three startups from zero before moving into venture advisory, now supporting over 70 startups. Of these, I’ve worked hands-on with more than 15 startups and systems serving thousands of users.ed zero-to-MVP delivery in B2B SaaS, and conducted field research in healthcare and operations-heavy environments. As AI entered these products, my work shifted toward identifying failure modes in human–AI systems and designing upstream safeguards before deployment.

Letters of Recommendation

  • Venture platform managing partner (MC + OC3)
  • Healthcare venture CEO (MC + OC1)
  • Former consulting senior leader (MC)

Mandatory Criterion (MC)

  • Product advisor for 70+ early-stage startups (product due diligence, AI deployment guidance, governance practices)
  • Designed human–AI risk interventions for an AI-powered commerce platform (structured inputs, anomaly detection, human-in-the-loop reporting)
  • Led zero-to-MVP delivery for B2B SaaS (2 products in 8 months + enterprise pilots)

Optional Criterion 1 (OC1)

  • Developed a risk-aware product framework linking field research → risk prioritisation → product requirements (applied in healthcare + AI commerce)

Optional Criterion 2 (OC2)

  • Mentored 17 founders through structured startup programs
  • Delivered talks on product governance and responsible tech
  • Published articles on product strategy (including a top-downloaded consulting article)

Questions

  1. Does this demonstrate sufficient digital technology impact for EP?
  2. Is my positioning as a human–AI interaction risk practitioner clear?
  3. Is OC1 strong enough as innovation, or too methodology-focused?
  4. Any gaps or overlaps across MC / OC1 / OC2?

Thank you in advance for any honest feedback.

@Francisca_Chiedu @pahuja @Adeelawan12 @Akash_Joshi @akshay

2

Hi @Yamato

Starting with your personal description, it’s important that you are clear about who you are in terms of your expertise and make sure it aligns with an eligible skill set listed in the guidance.

Letters of Recommendation

They seem to be reputable individuals, but you need to check their career history to be sure they are experts in the digital sector.

Mandatory Criterion

Product advisor for 70+ early-stage startups, designed human AI risk interventions, and led zero-to-MVP delivery for B2B SaaS are more like role descriptions than evidence. What evidence are you showing that demonstrates recognition for doing these things? Were you awarded, did you secure investment, or is there any external validation?

Optional Criterion 1

For the risk aware product framework linking field research to risk prioritisation and product requirements, you need to demonstrate how this is an innovation. This could be through a registered patent, proof that the product is in the market, and associated traction such as revenue.

Optional Criterion 2

Mentoring 17 founders through structured startup programs is a description of what you did, but how can you evidence this? Also, this may be seen as not substantial or not focused on sector advancement. Where did you deliver talks on product governance, and to how many people? Where are your articles published? A consulting article is not relevant to advancing the sector. For this criterion, mentoring in a tech‑focused structured program, substantial contributions to open source, or talks and conference speaking with significant viewership are the types of evidence that could show contribution to the sector outside your day job.

Questions

  1. Does this demonstrate sufficient digital technology impact for EP?

No, this does not demonstrate sufficient digital technology impact.

  1. Is my positioning as a human–AI interaction risk practitioner clear?

No, it is not clear.

  1. Is OC1 strong enough as innovation, or too methodology‑focused?

Sincerely, no. And you need at least two evidence sets in a criterion.

  1. Any gaps or overlaps across MC / OC1 / OC2?

Yes, there are gaps. You have described the great things you did, but you have not clearly shown the evidence to back your claims. I suggest you take time to understand the Tech Nation requirements. You can refer to the Tech Nation guidance and read relevant posts on this platform.

All the best.

3

Thank you so much for your candid and detailed feedback. I really appreciate you taking the time to review this so carefully.

I understand now that I need to fundamentally restrategize the overall framing, particularly around evidencing impact, external validation, and clearly positioning myself as a human-AI interaction risk practitioner aligned with the EP criteria. I’ll go back to the Tech Nation guidance and rebuild MC / OC1 / OC2 with stronger, outcome-based evidence rather than role descriptions.

If possible, it would be incredibly valuable to get your advice again once I’ve revised the structure. Thank you again for your generosity and directness it’s genuinely helpful.

1 Like