Evidence Review Request - Technical Cofounder (Exceptional Promise)

Stage 1
1

Hello!

I am applying for the GTV via the exceptional promise route. I have 4.5 years of experience as a Software Engineer working at several companies. I cofounded a startup in 2024 which grew to over 20k users. I am really basing my application on my work at the startup I cofounded because most of the other companies I worked at were not necessarily product led.

MC 1 - For this, I am submitting as one evidence, three news clippings about my startup. Two of them were interviews which were published as articles on Techpoint Africa and the Cable while the other is a mention on Techpoint Africa for building one of the Standout AI products in 2025 in Africa.

MC 2 - For this, I am submitting an award I won at a pitch competition. Out of 4 finalists, I pitched live and won with venture capitalists and tech professionals as the judges. Prize - 1.5m Naira

MC 3 - For this, I am submitting proof of expert feedback as I served as a mentor to 4 students taking their MBS in Rutgers University, New Jersey as part of their externship program. These were students in fields such as Cyber Security , Computer Science and Engineering Management. I received a formal certificate from the school as appreciation as well as a formal email which are included in the evidence.

OC 1.1 - For this, I am submitting evidence of innovative work done at my startup with screenshots of whatsapp conversations with early users and github links and screenshots of code implementations .

OC 1.2 - For this, I am also submitting evidence of innovation done at my start up, but different from the innovation mentioned in OC 1.1.

OC 1.3 - For this, I am submitting evidence of revenue in my startup with screenshots from Paystack (payment provider) spanning from 2024 to 2026. Total revenue sits at over 4m Naira from paying subscribers at 1500 NGN per month.

OC 3.1 - Evidence provided is an email showing a user asking for the ability to pay for a feature and code snippets of my implementation of that payment infrastructure.

OC 3.2 - Evidence of mobile app developed by me for my startup with 10k downloads on android store with 20k total installs and active on over 3k devices.

OC 3.3 - Evidence of 38k active users with screenshots from Google analytics for Web app (not mobile) along with 32k files processed for users (screenshot from database hosted on railway)

2

MC3 is the most urgent fix. “Expert feedback” means experts in your field vouching for you as a leader, not you mentoring students. The Rutgers externship reads as testimonial about your generosity, not recognition of your standing. Drop it for a senior engineer or founder commenting on your work, or a podcast/panel invitation that frames you as the expert.

OC1.1 and OC1.2 are self-documentation - WhatsApp screenshots, GitHub links, code snippets. Assessors consistently mark these down as the applicant attesting to their own innovation. OC1 needs external proof the work is novel: a third-party technical write-up, a referee describing the specific innovation, accelerator or publication coverage.

OC1.3 revenue at ~£2k won’t land as commercial traction - move it under OC3 framing and lead with OC3.3 (38k active users) and OC3.2 (10k downloads), both externally verifiable through GA and the Play Store. OC3.1 (user email + your payment code) isn’t commercial impact, it’s a feature build - drop it for something with reach numbers attached.

You are at nine pieces, use the tenth. The underlying work is real, but right now MC3 and OC1 lean on artefacts you produced yourself - that’s the pattern that gets EP applications refused.

3

Hi @Akash_Joshi

Thank you so much for the detailed review! I’m very grateful.

MC 3 - I will go ahead and remove the Rutgers mentorship from MC3

OC 1.1 - I have an article write up with the title " From victim to innovator" which talks about how I solved a problem with my start up. This was written by Techpoint Africa

OC 1.2 - I have another tech article that also talks about the innovation behind my startup. (not sure if this would be duplicate evidence)

OC 1.3 - I’ll move the revenue to support OC 3, although, I believe I am supposed to also show proof of innovation through revenue for OC1 or is this not necessary if I have shown it in other ways ?

Also, since OC1 needs more of externally verifiable evidence, would using tweets with links from users stating how the product has helped them be good ?

4

@richard_eradiri

Yes, 4.5 years as an Engineer qualifies you for Promise. Is this your first role in tech? Also, there is a common misconception about product led companies and eligibility. You said: “I am really basing my application on my work at the startup I cofounded because most of the other companies I worked at were not necessarily product led.”

Eligibility has nothing to do with being in a product led company. It is about being in a technology company. However, to meet OC1 and OC3, an applicant needs to show innovation and contribution in a product‑led company, respectively.

For OC2 and OC4, not a requirement, then MC, there is a slight product‑led angle when it comes to leading a company, a team, or a product. But most evidence in this criterion does not strictly require a product led company. However, the emphasis exists because a product led model makes sales and scaling faster. So, your decision is strategic since you chose OC1 and OC3. But then my feedback is platform first, whilst giving strategic individual case review.

Now on your evidence:

MC is about you being recognised for what you did. It is about you, not your startup. You want to show how you led the growth of a product led digital technology company, product, or team inside a digital technology company. The news clipping should be about you being recognised for the product you built or led. For example, your company received VC funding and the media covered it, highlighting your role. Or you received a national award for building a product that solved a problem, and the media carried it. The clipping must be about what you did, not just about the product.

For MC2, to be honest, it does not sound substantial in today’s tech world. Who gives an award for pitching an idea or business? You may get funding, but not an award. Was it a competition? Both can be valid, and two truths can co‑exist, but for Tech Nation you may want to focus on one for a clearer narrative.

MC3 is about assessing or judging the work of your peers in the same field, not mentoring. Also, Cyber Security, Computer Science, and Engineering Management are not Software Engineers like yourself. You need to be clear on what you did as a Software Engineer. Since it is mentoring, it can work for OC2, but mentoring just four students means the reach and impact are not substantial.

OC1: You are submitting evidence of innovation. What is the innovation? GitHub and code implementation can be okay, but we need clarity on the innovation first. OC1.2 is a description of an innovation, again, what is the innovation? OC1.3 (commercial earnings from an innovative product or solution) can be okay, but you need to show the innovation first. It is not about the earnings alone, but what you earned as a result of the innovation.

OC3.1: User feature requests will not show how you contributed to a product led company as a founder. For OC3.2, you need to show how you developed the mobile app, and then use the downloads as user adoption to support it.

OC3.3 is also user adoption, similar to OC3.2, and you may need to present them together.

Overall, you are moving in the right direction. However, I suggest you take some time to strengthen your evidence before applying. This will increase your chances.

All the best.

5

Thank you very much @Raphael ! This is really insightful and very helpful.
MC 1 - The articles mention me directly for the product I built and the problem solved with the product.

MC 2 - Its an equity free grant from a pitch competition for AI Innovation. Would this pass if framed this way ?

MC 3 - Agreed, I’d probably be better off without this one

OC 1.1 - The innovation here is a feature I built after interviewing early adopters of the product which boosted their productivity. I provided screenshots of the github code as well as verifiable urls to the screenshotted code. The whatsapp screenshots were from the actual user interviews that went on before building the feature.

OC1.2 - The innovation here was from an OCR(optical character recognition) feature I built based on a user’s complaint because a lot of the files they uploaded were hand written. I also provided screenshots of the github code as well as urls.

Although, I am considering removing this because the whatsapp screenshots are not independently verifiable. Thoughts ?

OC 3.2 and OC 3.3 were separate because they represented metrics from the mobile app and the web based application. So the downloads and metrics from the app store were different form the metrics on the web application from google analytics. They were separate applications I engineered

Question - For OC1, I am considering using an article which directly talks about me with the headline “From victim to innovator”. In addition, I have another article feature which also talks about me as an innovator. Would this count as duplicate evidence though they are separate articles from separate media outlets ?

Also, for OC1 as proof of innovation, would tweets from users (with verifiable links) talking about how the product has helped them pass for this ?

Again, thank you for your feedback!