Hi everyone,
I would really appreciate any feedback before I submit my administrative review — especially whether my responses are clear, concise, and focused on caseworking error rather than re-arguing the evidence.
My profile, including refusal feedback is attached here: link
Below are my draft responses to each assessment point:
MC
1: “Primarily internal or self-authored”
→ The assessment states that the evidence is “primarily internal or self-authored”. However, the application included a recommendation letter from a senior technology leader at ****, external to my employing organisation, with whom I collaborated on the development of a digital platform beyond my immediate workplace. This referee is independent of my employer and provided a supporting letter based on direct professional collaboration. His LinkedIn profile and professional details were included in the application. The **** platform website link was also submitted as external supporting evidence. Accordingly, the evidence submitted was not solely internal to my employer nor entirely self-authored.
2: “Predominantly internal/testimonial in nature”
→ In addition to recommendation letters, the application included project documentation such as feasibility study materials, technical presentations, and project delivery evidence. These were submitted as supporting documentary evidence of work undertaken alongside testimonial references.
3: “limited independently verifiable third-party”
→ The **** platform website link was included as publicly accessible evidence, with associated public social media channels demonstrating visible community engagement and audience reach.
Taken together, I respectfully request review of whether the submitted evidence was fully considered in reaching this conclusion.
OC2:
1: “primarily self-authored… rather than independently verifiable indicators of impact”
→ The application included the **** platform website link as part of the submitted evidence. This was submitted as part of a project delivered outside my primary employment, alongside supporting documentation under Optional Criterion 2.
2: “recognition by established organisations”
→ The application included voluntary IT work delivered through The **** Project, a UK nonprofit organisation, supported by a certificate and written recognition. This was submitted as evidence of contribution beyond my immediate occupation through an established organisation in support of Optional Criterion 2.
3: “ET scale”
→ The reference to “ET scale” in the assessment creates some uncertainty, as the application was submitted under the Exceptional Promise route rather than Exceptional Talent. I respectfully request clarification on whether the evidence relating to adoption and impact was assessed against the appropriate threshold for Exceptional Promise.
OC3:
→ The assessment states that the evidence consists of internal task screenshots and self-authored descriptions and does not include independently verifiable documentation of individual impact or quantified outcomes.
The application included project documentation relating to the **** mission-management platform, including references to large-scale operational usage and project outcomes, as well as supporting evidence of delivery and client-facing impact.
I respectfully request review of whether this submitted material was fully considered when assessing independently verifiable impact and quantified outcomes.”