Applying for Exceptional Promise (Technical Track) – Please Review My Evidence Plan

Stage 1: Tech Nation Endorsement
1

Hi everyone,

I previously shared an early draft of my application a while ago, but I’ve since made some updates and refined my evidences based on feedback. I’m reposting this new version to get clearer input before finalizing my submission.

I’m applying for the Exceptional Promise route under the Technical Founder pathway.

Overview

I’m a co-founder of a teletherapy platform launched and incorporated last year. It’s also launched and registered in the UK though there isn’t tangible clients traction there yet. It’s fully product-led — I am also part of the backend development team and overall product architecture.

We have also received $10k AWS credits for startups, and was accepted into the NVIDIA Inception Program.

Evidences so far

Mandatory Criterion (MC):

  • Company registration and product launch documents showing live product in market (screenshots of live platform, launch announcements, etc.)
  • NVIDIA Inception Program acceptance and AWS credits as third-party recognition.
  • Reference letter from co-founder highlighting my key technical contributions.

Optional Criterion 1 (OC1):

  • Evidence 1: Evidence of leading product development — technical architecture, product screenshots, system design diagrams, deployment details, and platform functionality.
  • Evidence 2: GitHub commits and screenshots showing my technical ownership of core backend features.
  • Evidence 3: Product demo deck showing user journey, system workflow, and the technical components I developed.

Optional Criterion 3 (OC3):

  • Usage stats and early traction reports (number of active users, sessions booked).
  • Screenshots of therapists and clients review confirming impact and how we improve access to mental health care.
  • Internal product analytics showing growth since launch.

Recommendation letters (planned)

I plan to submit 3 recommendation letters. Quick summary — feedback on the suitability of these would be appreciated.

  1. My Co-founder
  2. Long-term client / product owner — I have been working with him closely for 5 years as a freelancer; can verify product builds and technical delivery. (His product is currently not yet launched or incorporated)
  3. Product owner — worked with him for 1year as a freelancer; can confirm my contributions to his product and technical leadership. (His product is also currently not yet launched or incorporated)*

I’m aware that strong LinkedIn or company presence for recommenders helps. While all three are on LinkedIn, the last two are early-stage founders still building their companies and don’t yet have much online or industry presence.

Please could anyone take a look and let me know if this looks stronger and aligned with Tech Nation’s expectations for Exceptional Promise? Any suggestions on how to better structure or balance the evidences — or on the suitability of my recommenders — would be really appreciated.

Thank you :folded_hands:

@Akash_Joshi @pahuja @Raphael @Francisca_Chiedu

2

Can you please share the previous thread to see the previous feedback and if it has been incorporated?

3

@pahuja Here it is Exceptional Promise Application – Seeking Feedback on My Tech Portfolio. Thanks.

4

Your teletherapy platform foundation looks promising, but there are several key areas to strengthen before submitting. I’ve seen many early-stage founders succeed by focusing on external validation rather than just internal achievements. I’m afraid the AWS credits and NVIDIA Inception acceptance won’t be valid, you need stronger third-party recognition to stand out.

Your recommendation letter strategy needs immediate attention. Using your co-founder as a primary reference is a major weakness that I’ve seen lead to rejections in similar cases. Tech Nation views co-founder letters as lacking credibility since they’re inherently biased. Instead, seek external industry experts who can validate your technical contributions - perhaps someone from the AWS startup program, a mentor from NVIDIA Inception, or a respected figure in the mental health tech space who has observed your platform’s impact.

For your evidences, focus on quantifiable metrics over internal documentation. Screenshots of platform functionality won’t carry much weight without user growth numbers, revenue figures, or testimonials from actual therapists and patients. I’ve seen applications like yours succeed when they demonstrate clear market traction - even early-stage metrics like active user sessions, successful therapy bookings, or positive feedback scores can work if presented properly alongside third-party validation.

Your application has solid bones with the regulatory compliance work and technical architecture. With stronger external validation and more credible recommendation letters, you’ll have a much better chance of success. Consider delaying submission by a few months to gather these stronger supporting elements rather than rushing with what you have now.

5

@Akash_Joshi Thanks so much for the detailed feedback. It’s really appreciated. I will work on the points as stated.

6

Hi all,
Sorry for jumping into this conversation. I’ve heard that since this is the year-end, tech nation seems to have reached some kinda quota and are rejecting applications left, right and center. Atleast for whoever I know, I’m only hearing rejections.
Thinking to submit my application by next week, does anyone have any recommendations if I shall submit or have heard any acceptance story very recently?

Any positive story will boost motivation. Thanks!

7

Where did you hear this?

8

This is not true, for the past 5 years, I have consistently interacted with applicants and have been privileged to know their application outcomes, starting from friends, mine and applicants I have guided and I can say boldly that Tech Nation has integrity.

Most of the rejections I have heard and seen, including the ones posted here are due to applicants not understanding or following the guidance, weak evidence and evidence not aligning rightly to chosen criteria amongst other things.

For those whose rejections were as a result of oversight, most likely the applicants did not present their evidence properly and clearly, TN still endorse after the applicants point them to it during review.

With all due respect. I am not insensitive to the pains that come with these rejections and it’s not anyone’s wish - That’s why we are here to guide you.

Fact: Two of the applicants I supported got endorsed recently one last two weeks another just yesterday. @morammal too just got endorsed.

If you are indeed sure you have done your homework in-terms of your application, please go ahead.

All the best.

9

Thanks so much Raphael, I will indeed submit my application.

10

@Opzy Trust you are okay.

You have come a long way gathering your evidence. Well done!

Just a quick feedback

Mandatory Criterion (MC) - This is weak

  • Company registration and product launch documents showing live product in market (screenshots of live platform, launch announcements, etc.)

This set of evidence aim to show that you started a business, whose product was launched. Great! But what is required is that you led the growth of a product-led digital technology company, product or team. Your evidence set, does not rightly fit.

Company registration and others are not convincing evidence for this criteria.

Also, saying the product is product led while also noting there isn’t client traction yet can weaken your claim and create contradiction. It will suggest the product hasn’t been validated by real users, product led simply means the product itself is already delivering value, users are adopting it even in your early stage.

Product led - The product itself is leading the growth and user adoption.

Suggestion :
Your narrative should be how you led the growth…
Can you show lines of code from public repos like Github, showing ownership and how you started from MVP to what you currently have in the market, support this with a reference letter from leading industry expert who knows about this product, describing your work.

Your product should have free plan to onboard users, so growth can happen through the product experience.

The issue I have with NVIDIA is that it is not equity based. NVIDIA doesn’t take a stake in the companies the onboard. However, do you have email or criteria for acceptance?

Reference letter from co-founder highlighting your key technical contributions is weak, letters should be from experts not colleagues or friends.

Optional Criterion 1 (OC1)
Evidence of leading product development - Is this the same company as the one in MC? If yes this will weaken your application narrative. GitHub commits is okay, shows external validation.

Optional Criterion 3 (OC3):
Usage stats and early traction reports, screenshots of therapists are these for a different startup or the same as MC and OC1? If yes, for the same startup, this will weaken your application narrative. Will show that asides your startup, you have not really done much.

Recommendation letters (planned)

Letter from Co-founder is weak, long time product owner client, is he/she an expert in the Tech sector, also someone you worked for or with for 1 year, your relationship I believe is more than just being a freelancer. If that is what it is, then you may need to get new recommenders, because these set of people may weaken your application case.

All the best.

12

Hi @Opzy

You clearly have strong entrepreneurial and technical contributions, and the startup is product-led, which aligns with Tech Nation’s requirements.

However, your outline currently looks incomplete.

Your evidence is almost entirely internal, and Tech Nation does not accept internal-only evidence for MC. To be competitive, your pack needs more external validation, stronger referees, and evidence of industry recognition beyond your own startup.

More specifically:
MC:

You need to show you are a recognized leader / potential leader in digital tech industry, not just within your startup.
You need to

  1. Demonstrate your personal leadership contribution and recognition, not “we built a product”
    Right now, your MC evidence only shows your company exists, product launched and the startup is accepted into 2 programs. This does not prove that you personally are recognized as a leader.

  2. NVIDIA Inception is good — but not enough
    Inception is Non-selective, Auto-accepts early-stage AI companies, Has low barrier to entry

  3. AWS credits are not considered external leadership recognition
    Validators like AWS credits or cloud grants are NOT enough for MC in isolation.

  4. Co-founder reference letter is considered internal → good but insufficient. Stronger letters are from CEOs of other companies, Founders of scaling tech products, Directors in recognized industry orgs

  5. No media, PR, events, publications, or external features
    Tech Nation wants external verification that you are someone of note. Right now, the MC is at high risk of rejection.

You need at least 2–3 of these:

  1. Add public evidence
  • Press release for your launch
  • Media articles (even small blogs count)
  • Social proof → founders posting about launch + traction
  • Awards, pitch competitions, demo day selection
  • Program acceptance into:
    • Techstars
    • YC Startup School
    • Google for Startups
    • Antler / EF
    • StartUp India (for your UK registration if applicable)
  1. Add industry validation
  • Invitations to speak at webinars or events
  • Guest panels
  • Podcasts
  • Articles you wrote about mental health / teletherapy tech
  • Domain experts endorsing you
  1. Add external reference letters
    From:
  • CTO/CEO of a mature tech company
  • Head of engineering/product from startups you’ve freelanced with
  • Founder of a funded startup
  • Professor/industry researcher
  • A leader from the NVIDIA program

OC1: This is good since you talk about product development however:

  1. Your evidence must show novelty. The goal of OC1 is to demonstrate innovation and your contribution to it. Simple commits and demo deck work is not enough.
  2. All the 3 evidences also look like towards the same product and hence better to be compiled into 1 evidence document.
  3. You must clearly highlight what was innovation, your contribution to the innovation, market traction of the product along with proofs like reference letter, media/PR about the product, user testimonials about the product, etc.

OC3:
Your evidence aligns well with OC3 because you have real users and booking volume.
But needs strengthening as your role in the commercial success is unclear.

  1. Your diagrams used in OC1 are better suited here as OC3 accepts architecture and diagrams.
  2. Traction must be verifiable, internal analytics alone is not enough. Can you get a reference letter from a user like therapist or clinic highlighting the commercial impact on their business? Reviews must show quantified impact and not just highlight good product.
  3. If the traction is low then numbers won’t be appealing.
  4. Please add a letter highlighting your contributions and its clear impact on core company metrics.

REFERENCE LETTERS (MAJOR ISSUE)
Tech Nation requires 3 letters from senior, credible, external tech leaders. If 2/3 do not have product launched and 1/3 is an internal cofounder letter, all 3 are quite weak.

13

@Raphael Thanks a lot for the detailed feedback. I really appreciate it.

I just want to clarify a few points based on your comments.

I understand your point about needing to show leadership in product growth and not only company registrations. The platform has real traction and has already been validated by users and therapists. When I mentioned limited traction, I was referring specifically to the UK launch and not the overall usage.

I can show the entire product journey through GitHub commits, architecture notes and the technical decisions I led as the co-founder and senior backend engineer.

Regarding the product-led point, the platform is already in active use, so I will adjust my narrative to focus more on user adoption and growth instead of suggesting that it is still in a launch phase.

I also have the official NVIDIA Inception acceptance email which I will include as supporting evidence.

For OC1 and OC3, both are based on the same therapy platform.

About the recommenders and reference letters, I will work on getting stronger senior profiles as advised.

Thanks again for taking the time to review everything.

14

@pahuja Thank you for the thorough feedback. I appreciate the clarity and the time taken to review this. I will take your feedback on board as I refine my evidence and overall narrative. Thanks again.