Evidence Review Help (Exceptional Promise)

Stage 1: Tech Nation Endorsement
1

Hi everyone,

I’m preparing my Exceptional Promise (Digital Technology) application and would really appreciate feedback on whether my evidence structure is strong enough.

About my GitHub projects

I’m currently building three real projects (active development since late October 2025):

EB2B Marketplace with AI Sales Agent (Next.js, NestJS, GPT-4o-Realtime) - Building for Premier Decorations UK

Taxi Booking App MVP - Building for Rhys McKay

AI Inventory & Demand Forecasting Dashboard - Personal Project

These projects are genuine and actively coded, but not fully completed yet because I recently began building them while finishing my MSc at UCL.

My GitHub graph is low for most of the year due to my full-time MSc Management, but I am now committing consistently again.

Industry Work (Salescode.ai / CokeBuddy – Coca-Cola eB2B)

I have strong technical contribution evidence from my 2 years at Salescode:

Jira tickets (SIT, UAT, ETL, backend fixes)

ETL pipelines, automation scripts

Java threading optimization work

Jenkins pipelines building

Kafka ingestion monitoring

SIT/UAT client-facing sessions

Multi-country CokeBuddy deployment (India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Philippines, etc.)

Since all repos were private, I’m showing this via Jira screenshots, code commits in github ,pipeline screenshots, SIT notes and documentation.

My Letters of Recommendation

I will be receiving LoRs from:

CTO of Salescode.ai

CIO at HCCB (Hindustan Coca-Cola)

Managing Director of Premier Decorations (UK)

Planned Criteria Structure

Mandatory Criterion

Awards, performance recognition, publications, and leadership:

Most Valuable Cameos award at salescode for HCCB Cokebuddy Project

Spot Award at salescode SLMG Cokebuddy Project

Performance review showing leading performer consistently in every Q

Publications about CokeBuddy & eB2B (not naming me but shows scale of project)

LinkedIn posts from my CEO about CokeBuddy

PMP certification from PMI

AWS Cloud Practitioner certification

And supporting letters from:

Founder of the Taxi App (confirming I lead architecture & development)

UCL Technology Entrepreneurship Professor

Senior Manager at Publicis Sapient (Toronto)

OC1 – Innovation

EB2B Marketplace → architecture diagrams, working demo video, screenshots, GitHub repo, README

Taxi App MVP → architecture diagrams, working demo, screenshots, GitHub repo, README

AI Analytics Tool → architecture, working demo, GitHub repo, README

OC2 – Technical Contribution

GitHub commit history (Salescode period + current projects)

Internal pipelines built (ETL, automation, Jenkins, Kafka)

Confluence/documentation of technical work

Jira tickets assigned to me

SIT/UAT evidence

Would appreciate opinions from endorsed applicants or reviewers — especially around whether this mix of strong industry contribution + ongoing GitHub builds is acceptable for Exceptional Promise.

Thank you!

2

Hi @Bhavy_Suri

Your background and evidence roadmap look very impressive, I must mention.

However, just to personally clarify:

For evidence of Innovation, isn’t financial statements and patents the acceptable documents for this while architecture diagrams, GitHub repo, etc speak more of Optional Criteria 3?

3

Thank you for your review — I really appreciate your perspective. I may be wrong, but based on the current guidance from the new endorsing bodies (post-Tech Nation), OC1 seems to focus on demonstrating innovation through what you’ve built (architecture, repos, MVPs, demos), while patents/financials are usually considered under OC3 for commercial impact.

If I’ve misunderstood the updated criteria, I’d be grateful if you could shed more light or guide me on how best to map my evidence.

Thanks again for taking the time to review my post!

4

Hi @Bhavy_Suri thanks for sharing your outline. At present the application needs substantial strengthening to be competitive for endorsement. I recommend building additional experience and collecting stronger, guideline-aligned evidence before submitting.

Key concerns and next steps:
• Recent projects: Projects that began only a few weeks ago raise three issues — they are (a) too close to an application date, (b) too early to demonstrate meaningful impact, and (c) not yet demonstrable as full-time or industry-level contributions. I suggest omitting these until they have demonstrable traction and longevity.
• Letters of recommendation (LORs): LORs should come from recognised industry experts who have worked with you for at least 12 months. The most recent recommender does not appear to be a technical/industry authority and is unlikely to strengthen the application.
• Mandatory Criterion (MC) evidence: Much of the MC evidence you’ve listed is not accepted under the guidelines. Internal awards, certificates, LinkedIn posts/mentions, and similar items are not valid. Publications that do not name you require strong third-party validation to substantiate your claims. Letters must do more than confirm your role in architecture — they must clearly describe your significant contributions and their impact on the company and the wider industry. Weak or generic letters can harm your case.
• Optional Criteria (OC1 & OC3):
• OC1 currently reads as a self-claim. You need to clearly describe the product or digital innovation, demonstrate your direct and significant contribution, show market traction, and provide independent third-party evidence that validates your claims. Right now the outline looks like isolated snippets rather than evidence aligned to the criterion.
• OC3 must quantify the impact of your work on core company metrics and be backed by letters from senior executives who can validate those results.

Please review the official guidelines carefully to understand which evidences are considered valid or invalid. Once you have stronger, guideline-aligned materials (validated publications, independent third-party evidence, robust impact metrics, and authoritative LORs), we can revise the outline for a much stronger submission.

5

Hi @pahuja, thank you so much for taking the time to write such a detailed review — I truly appreciate the clarity you provided.

Based on your feedback, I’ve completely restructured my MC, OC1, and OC3 to align tightly with the guidelines:

Mandatory Criteria (MC)

I removed all internal-only items.
Instead, each MC document now focuses on public, third-party validation of the digital products I contributed to, supported by short excerpts from my CTO confirming my technical leadership, contribution and impact.

This includes:

  • App store/Play Store listings with number of downloads and industry articles, multi country launches about the CokeBuddy and Mars SFA/eB2B platforms - backed with excerpt from LOR
    (2 Documents 1 for CocaCola 1 for Mars)
  • Deployment impact metrics and external recognition from famous publishers and well known people in digital tech industry for salescode products which I have contributed in - backed with excerpt from LOR (1 Document for salescode’s own product)

These now directly map to “industry recognition of work that has public impact,” rather than internal awards.

OC1 — Innovation (Strengthened + Third-party Validation Added)

I restructured OC1 to avoid self-claims. The new structure includes:

EB2B Marketplace: architecture, design, technical innovation, plus letters from multiple real businesses (1 in UK + 3 India) confirming their willingness to adopt the system (They are not tech businesses but High value businesses with strong market presence and global clients).

plus letter from my UCL professor in technology entrepreneurship - who is also the mentor for me for this product - mentioning my leadership potential and possible contribution in UK tech.

2 Evidence Documents (1 - Project Related , 2 - letters of intents)

Taxi App MVP: architecture + GitHub + founder letter confirming I am the technical builder and Co-founder (1 evidence document Including all this)

All innovation dated back to Aug 2024 - showing proofs on letter of intents via business plans, pitch decks, demo schedules, client feedback, etc., to address concerns about recency

Each PDF now includes external validation - from the users willing to use these application rather than only my own description.

OC3 — Significant Technical Contribution (Quantified + Verified)

I structured OC3 exactly as you advised, with:

  • Jira IDs showing ownership of key ETL, automation and deployment work - supported with excerpts from CTO
  • GitHub commits from private repos (screenshots With Blurred Code snippets)
  • Confluence documentation I authored
  • CTO excerpts confirming quantifiable impact such as:
    • Fastest deployment timelines
    • Automation reducing onboarding time
    • Optimisation of Java-threaded pipelines reducing processing time
    • Clean data ETL rules enabling AI recommendations

Everything is measurable, attributable, and validated by a senior executive.

Additional Notes

Regarding concerns on the “recent projects,” I will clarified timelines:
The business plans, demos, pitching, and client discussions began in August, with coding of the MVP starting recently. Letters from high-value businesses (India + UK) confirm serious intent to adopt once complete.

It would mean a lot if you could review this new structure and let me know if it now aligns better with the expectations for an Exceptional Promise application.

6

This is an improved draft, but it still requires refinement and currently remains insufficient.
• MC focuses on industry recognition, not general public impact. Ensure you highlight any strong PR or media coverage related to the products and explicitly connect this to your individual contribution. The letter must clearly demonstrate substantial, attributable impact—not minor or non-distinct contributions.
• OC1 is currently your weakest section, as it is too early-stage and lacks demonstrable impact. Future projections, intent notes, or forecasts based on incomplete MVPs do not meet the guideline requirements (as the criteria explicitly state). Only validated, real-world impact with measurable outcomes qualifies. Please confirm whether the letter of intent is an official commercial contract with committed value. Market traction is a core requirement for OC1 innovations.
• It is unclear whether you are evidencing innovation or entrepreneurial impact. This distinction must be clear and consistent throughout.
• A letter from a professor is misaligned with the business focus you are presenting. A stronger alternative would be a letter from a high-value business client who can validate both the innovation and its commercial or practical impact.
• Excerpts are not a substitute for full letters. Complete, signed letters are required.
• Your OC1 evidence aligns more closely with OC3, which is appropriate once the product is launched and demonstrates commercial traction.

7

Hi @Bhavy_Suri

You have strong technical experience and promising contributions, especially at Salescode and on GitHub. Your LORs are also potentially okay, except for the Managing Director of Premier Decorations, just make sure, those writing are big either from the Technical or Business side of a Tech company, with good trajectory in the sector.

A few points to consider:

  • Awards for projects, LinkedIn mentions, or publications not naming you personally are weak MC evidence. Letters must validate your real contributions and impact.

  • Recent personal projects are too new to show meaningful impact; focus on work with more traction.

  • OC1 evidence should show clear innovation or measurable outcomes, supported by independent validation, not just self claims, designs and what have you.

  • Certifications like PMP or AWS Cloud Practitioner don’t carry much weight on their own.

Overall, with some refinement and guideline aligned evidence, your profile is promising.

All the best.

8

Thankyou so much much @pahuja @Raphael for taking time and helping me with the review - I truly appreciate the clarity you provided.

I’ve gone through your advice and replied to you in line with what you suggested.
Please let me know if there’s anything else I need to do or clarify regarding the same — happy to make any changes needed.

MC: I have multiple articles and PR features that publicly highlight the products I worked on, especially CokeBuddy. These include coverage from PR Newswire, AdGully, New Business Age (Nepal), and recognition through the FMCG Asia Awards 2024. I will clearly link these media publications to the specific modules and functionalities I personally contributed to—using excerpts from the signed LORs—to demonstrate direct, attributable impact and industry-level recognition.

OC1: Yes, the documents I referenced are official commercial contracts with committed commercial value. My current products are in the pilot and implementation stages, which is why the contracts are the primary evidence at this point. Regarding the taxi-booking application, I have a formal agreement that grants me equity upon successful visa transition, and until then, I am contractually engaged on an hourly paid basis. The client is already a UK citizen, and the engagement structure is formally documented

Professors LOR: Understood. Although the professor specialises in technology entrepreneurship—which is why I initially included him—I agree that a business-focused reference is more aligned with the evidence requirements. I have previously freelanced for a technology company in Dubai and remain in contact with the founder; I can obtain a detailed LOR from him validating my technical contributions, commercial value, and innovation-driven outcomes.

Excerpts are not substitute to signed letters : Acknowledged. I will ensure the full, signed letters are included. The references or excerpts I planned to use was to point reviewers to specific validated contributions within the attached LORs.

9

Your MC evidence is heading in the right direction with the PR coverage from outlets like AdGully and PR Newswire. These publications give you that third-party validation the committee needs. Just make sure you’re not just showing that CokeBuddy was recognized, but that your specific technical contributions directly enabled what got recognized. Link the media mentions to the exact modules or systems you built. I’ve seen applications where the candidate got great press coverage for their product but failed because they couldn’t clearly draw the line from their individual work to the outcome being praised.

The OC1 section is your biggest challenge right now. Letters of intent and commercial contracts are a start, but the committee wants to see real traction and measurable outcomes from deployed products. In past applications I’ve reviewed, projects at the pilot stage without active users or revenue don’t meet the bar for OC1. Consider pivoting these to OC3 instead, where you can showcase the technical innovation and architecture without needing to prove market success. Your taxi app and eB2B platform have interesting technical challenges, and the system designs you’ve created could work well as contribution evidence rather than innovation evidence.

On your letters, getting full signed letters from your referees is non-negotiable. The committee won’t accept excerpts or snippets pointing to parts of letters. Also, swap that professor letter for someone from one of your business clients who can speak to both the technical merit and commercial value of your work. A business owner who’s actually using what you built carries more weight than an academic reference for this visa route. Make sure every letter addresses your individual impact, explains why you stand out in the industry, and details what you’ll contribute to the UK economy.

You’ve got strong foundations here with your Salescode work and the genuine client relationships you’re building. Focus on telling the story of measurable impact from work that’s already deployed and let your newer projects mature a bit more before featuring them prominently. With these adjustments, you’ll have a much stronger case.

10

@Akash_Joshi Thankyou so much for a comprehensive review for my application.

do you suggest adding 3 documents in MC and rest all in OC3?