I want to get some guidance to understand if it is worth doing an appeal and if yes, what should I focus on.
I have more than 12 years of experience in data engineering and I worked in senior roles with companies in Germany and UK (came to UK 2 years ago). All of the companies I worked with are product focused and I got recommendations from 3 different industry leaders who I worked with for more than 12 months in last 5 years. In my recommendation letters, all of them covered the details of my work and its impact.
I read the Guidelines and they didn’t mention what constitutes strong evidence and what is weak, that is the reason (also the 31 Mar announcement) that I made the application in hurry.
The pieces of evidence I provided were
- Contract letter with the current company as a full-time employee
- A job offer from another company in the fintech space in the UK (Offer is more than double an average data engineer salary in the UK)
OC1: Letter of reference from Engg Lead in one of my previous companies who also mentioned the link to the google cloud case study where he spoke to google cloud about the impact of my work. (My name is not mentioned in the case study but in the reference letter he explained this)
OC3: A letter of reference from the director of marketing from my current company showing the financial impact of my work
I got the rejection with the following reasons
`After careful review, we do not endorse this application. The primary reason is that the candidate has
supplied insufficient evidence for the assessor to review.
The only material evidence provided are compensation reports, job offers, and references. While
references are helpful, they are not considered sufficient evidence by themselves, as per Tech Nation
guidelines. This is because the assessor must form their own opinion on the quality of any innovation,
academic contribution, or technical contribution provided in evidence - comparing against other
successful GTV awardees. Compensation reports are helpful in validating employment and where the
candidate compares to their peer group. However, without these examples of work, we cannot form an
overall opinion for any criteria.
The candidate has a track record of independent consulting and contracting for product-led companies.
While respected, for evidence to qualify for OC1 or OC3, the candidate must be a verified employee,
founder, executive, or board member. Consultants & contractors may only be considered if they
demonstrate their skillset is exceptionally niche and typically unavailable on the open market.
Not sure why they mentioned this, I never mentioned any contract experience anywhere
Due primarily to the above, the candidate fails to meet the requirements for Mandatory Criteria (MC) for
Exceptional Talent (ET) due to a lack of significant evidence that they are a nationally or internationally
recognised leader of a technology field. Their public profile and complimentary references signal a
candidate of merit. Being a specialist in Data Engineering with <company 1> and would be worthy of exploration.
However, it is required that the candidate demonstrate leadership through a mixture of exceptional
references from a wide network of established industry leaders that detail how, what, and why the
candidate is a leader of their field; examples of significant media recognition; examples of high profile
speaking engagements or editorial engagements; exceptionally high compensation with respect to their
peer group; or other forms of recognisable contributions that are celebrated in their own right of which
the candidate is a validated author.
The candidate fails to meet the requirements for Optional Criteria 1 due to a lack of eligible evidence
they have a track record of authoring significant innovations for product-led technology companies to
the standard of an ET awardee in the last 5 years while being an employee, founder, executive, or
board member. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate field-advancing innovations authored
directly by the candidate.
The candidate fails to meet the requirements for Optional Criteria 3 due to a lack of eligible evidence
they have a track record of significantly and continually contributing to product-led technology
companies as an employee, founder, board member, or executive resulting in significant impact to
those organisations with detailed evidence that directly links the candidate’s provided examples of
contributions to the success metrics of those organisations.
For OC1 and OC3 there simply are no examples to review.
On the basis of the above, we do not endorse this application.`
Thanks for your help in advance