I just had Exceptional talent endorsement rejected. Here is what I provided:
MC:
-
Evidence of media coverage that I launched the first ever mobile banking application for corporate customers in the country. At that time I worked as a Director of Software Department at one of the largest banks in [Country] - National Bank.
File names:
1 - Media Coverage National Bank Mobile App.pdf - (this contains actual coverage)
2 - Information about the Media outlet.pdf - (this contains proof about the prestige of Media outlet) -
Evidence of high remuneration, as a founder of my startup A, I have received dividends amounting to $153 000 for first fiscal quarter of 2023.
File names:
3 - High remuneration dividends.pdf
I have also secured investment for my new venture B, attaching evidence in the form of a letter of intent to invest from VC.
File names:
10 - VC Investment.pdf
OC1:
1 - Leading role letter Startup A.pdf - (this is a letter from the CFO documenting my contribution as a founder as well as receipt of dividends)
2 - Meeting with president and TV coverage.pdf - (this contains evidence of coverage of Product A on national TV as well as recognition by the president of the country. Product A is an ERP system for apparel companies which was launched by my company Startup A)
3 - Information about National TV channel.pdf - (this contains evidence that National TV is a flagship news TV channel in the country)
4 - Tax report for Startup A.pdf - (this contains tax report of my startup A for January 2023 documenting revenue of $163,000 for the month of January 2023)
OC3:
1 - Availability of National Bank Mobile App.pdf - (this contains evidence of availability of the app as well as proves that it has 50k downloads. reminder - this is the app that I launched when I worked as a Director of Software Development Department at National Bank. National Bank Mobile App is the first ever mobile banking app for corporate customers in the country)
2 - Leading Role National Bank.pdf - (this a letter from the Deputy Chairman of National Bank,
documenting that I performed a leading role at National Bank and that I launched National Bank Mobile App and that it has 7000 active business customers)
The panel decision:
"After careful review, it is the opinion of the assessor that the candidate does not meet any criteria for a GTV. We do not endorse this application. The primary reason is a lack of evidence/examples of each criteria.
Regarding MC, their references are supportive and complimentary; however, two are from wider colleagues at National Bank, signalling only a small network of individuals from which to draw references. However media coverage of one’s employer/partner is not recognition of the candidate without the candidate being explicitly mentioned. Their compensation is moderate but not exceptional. Their YouTube/media coverage of Startup A was from March 2018 - greater than 5 years from application and therefore cannot qualify. It also only had 16 views. MC has not been met.
Regarding OC1 & OC3, Startup A appears to be a consultancy - not a product-led technology company, with a major project for National Bank. Their supporting reference claims multiple products are made, but we see no evidence of this on their website. They also say they create custom banking products - indicative of a consultancy. Because of this, we canot be confident examples for Startup A are eligible for either criteria. Information regarding VC only states that they are “poised to make investments of $100,000” - this is not evidence of any investments having been made. On the basis of the above, there is insufficient evidence for endorse."
To me their feedback seems completely insane. None of their claims of the panel are correct. My recommendation letters were from the CEO of the 4th largest bank in the country, a very very influential person. Second letter was from the Deputy chairman, the third one was from the CFO of my customer for my startup A.
For MC, the evidence I provided explicitly mentioned my name, my title, my contribution and that it was in fact the first ever mobile banking app for corporate customers in the country. I also provided info about the prestige of the media outlet that covered the event.
I provided evidence of high remuneration, documenting that I received dividends for Q1 of 2023 in the amount of $153,000. So in the span of 3 months, I received $153 000, which is equivalent to an annual salary of $612,000. According to Glassdoor, the average annual salary for Senior Software Engineer in London is £86,919, which is around $110,000. Which makes my income 5.5 times more than the average salary for senior software engineer in London. I don’t know why the assessor considered media coverage of Product A for MC. I provided this evidence for OC1. And it seems that the assessor also mixed up my evidence for OC. I provided evidence of the letter of intent to invest in my new venture to be considered for MC, but for some reason it was considered for OC. Even with the mix-up I would like to address that the assessor didn’t read or intentionally mis-characterized and downplayed the coverage of Product A. More specifically I provided evidence that Product A, is a product that I launched through my company was featured on the nations largest tv channel (TV 24), I provided evidence from BBCs media guide that specifically mentions that TV 24 is the flagship news tv channel in the country. Moreover the evidence featured recognition of my work from the President of the Country. Assessor’s statement that “It also only had 16 views”, is highly improper and unprofessional. That was merely a recording of the event that was uploaded. Events that involve heads of state are usually highly televised national events and there’s not many people in the world who have met any head of state, especially during televised media event.
I provided evidence of the letter of intent to invest in my new venture to be considered for MC, but for some reason it was considered for OC. I also provided evidence of media coverage of Product A to be considered for OC1. I never claimed that investment of 100k was already received, I merely used this letter of intent to be used in support of MC. This was in fact the third evidence that was submitted for MC out of the required 2. Even if the assessor doesn’t accept this, it doesn’t disqualify me from MC since this was the third evidence out of the required 2 needed for MC. While Startup A did have 1 banking project which was completed as a consultancy, the rest of the irrefutable evidence proves that Startup A produced the highly successful and innovative Product A, ERP product. This in fact is proven by multiple types of evidence that was provided, including, tax report, media coverage on the nations largest TV channel, recognition by the president of the country, letter from the CFO. Additionally the third reference letter from a CFO of Company A, confirms the significance and innovative features of Product A, as he is one of the early customers. Additionally just by navigating to Product A website, it’s possible to see that this is in fact a software product and not a consultancy. Just because Product A as a legal entity is owned by Startup A, doesn’t disqualify it for OC.Just as Microsoft provides limited consulting services, it doesn’t make them primarily a consultancy. It’s impossible to think that Product A doesn’t exist as it’s impossible to think that MS Windows doesn’t.
Honestly I don’t know, what kind of talent they are looking for! Is my evidence really weak? Okay, even if they don’t accept, the recognition by the president since it was more than 5 years ago, I still have 2 more types of evidence to prove OC1. Besides the Product A is still operational and still very successful. Not to grant me any of the criteria seems insane to me