Exceptional promise application rejection

Stage 1
1

Hello :wave: I got rejected for the Exceptional promise
This was the response

Assessment panel feedback:
The applicant applied under the Exceptional Promise visa route, selecting optional criteria 2 and 3.
The applicant meets the requirements of the mandatory criteria. The applicant provides relevant letters of recommendation that highlight specifics of their work. The applicant has appeared in panels at relevant conferences in the sector and shows they have been invited to take part in the Devs of Colour showcase at an expo. The application demonstrates emerging national recognition and the potential to be a leader in digital technology.
The applicant does not meet the requirements of optional criteria 2. In the mandatory criteria we followed the link to the video of the applicant’s conference talk because video cannot be uploaded to the application and so must be externally held.
The remainder of the application relies on external links to the applicant’s google drive. We cannot reference evidence held by the applicant as it can be changed after assessment and only use links to verify the contents of evidence which is readable and uploaded to the application.
As such the documents relating to this criteria are additional personal statements with embedded screenshots which do not sufficiently support the claims made, or letters written specifically in support of the application again without evidence to support claims.
There is no evidence that the applicant has been recognised for advancing the sector of digital technology outside of their employment.
The applicant does not meet the requirements of optional criteria 3 for the same reason. There is evidence of the applicant’s work, but not evidence to support the claims of impact. The claims of impact are also vague, such as ‘had a very big part to play in the development’.
This is not a level of impact that can be measured or demonstrated as significant on the company itself.
Overall the applicant has met the requirements of the mandatory only. We do not endorse this application.

For my first OC2 I provided documentation showing my involvement in the games industry as part of the team members of the game convention, in this I added pictures reference of my name on the official website as one of the organizing team and roles I also added a google drive link of a reference letter written by the founder recognizing me.

For my second OC2 I provided a document of me talking about my voluntary role working at a game house developing the app and I provided screenshot and code of one of the functionality i added and google drive video link of me showing how it works on the app.

For the third OC2 I showcased my talk on an expo with the help of pictures and also provided a google drive of highlights of the event. I also provided an interview highlight in which I was interviewed as a game developer in an event I exhibited at.

My last OC2 was how I participated in the first ever Xbox Africa games camp being selected amongs 600 individuals all over Africa for the camp.

Then for my first OC3 I talked on my work on a project and showcased my impact. I shared google drive links of me exhibiting and showcasing the projects also via video and also provided download metrics.

For my other OC3 I talked on impact in a game that got recognition and shaped how people saw African game developers.

My third OC3 I provided a reference letter from the founder of the game studio providing detailed approach I took that solved a impacted on the games over Succes of the first oc3 and he also backed the send oc3

2

Hi @Carthy sorry about this outcome!

For clarity, can you please list what all information was part of the evidence documents and what was part of the Google drive?

Like the assessor has mentioned, they won’t review more self-authored documents beyond the 10 submitted. They won’t even consider it in appeal. Hence it’s good to get clarity on it so we can keep the information in the drive aside and see if your application otherwise is strong enough to appeal.

3

For my first OC2 I showcased my role as an active member of the Africacomicade community(a community uniting the games industry across Africa), I also elaborated on my role as a program manager in the Gamathon convention 2023 hosted my africacomicade. In which I was also I charge of handling delegates travel arrangement from 5 different countries in Africa. For evidence I put a screen shot of my name being listed on thier website under the amazing team behind the Gamathon convention 2023. I also added email screenshots amongst delegates over travel arrangement. And I added a google drive link for a reference letter backed by the founder of the community.

For the second OC2 I gave a short description on my talk in an industry event with pictures of me talking on stage, there wasn’t a video to showcase this just pictures reference. I also added to this document a media highlight YouTube link of me in the biggest Africa esport tournament being interviewed as a game developer having over 5000 people present. I added a screen shot of the interview and a YouTube link of the media coverage.

For my third OC2 document I talked on the voluntary project I was part of developing an app with a game engine, in this I described my roles in development. As it not being an open source project I was only allow to paste one of the codes I wrote stating the function and screenshot of the development environment. I added a google drive link of the test video of that particular function as I cannot post on YouTube due to company policy.

For my fourth OC2 I talked about my participation in the first ever Xbox game camp in Africa being part of the 600 campers invited from 4 countries in Africa with screen shots of me and my participation .

For the OC3 I gave two documents describing my work and impact
I also added a reference letter in my OC3 backing up my work giving detailed impact and solution I had contributed but these were overlooked and I’m not sure the reviewer went through it

4

i had to use a language model to compare my documents with the feedback this is what I got
Vagueness of the Reviewer’s Feedback:

  • Generalized Statements: The feedback from the reviewer seems to focus on broad, somewhat vague statements such as “the remainder of the application relies on external links” and “there is no evidence that the applicant has been recognized for advancing the sector of digital technology outside of their employment.” These comments suggest that the reviewer might not have fully considered the specific examples and context provided in your evidence.
  • Lack of Engagement with Specifics: The reference letters and project details you provided are detailed and specific, yet the reviewer dismisses the claims without seemingly engaging with the actual content. For instance, the reviewer mentions that claims of impact are vague, but your evidence (like the reference letter from founder) as one of your oc3 offers concrete metrics (30,000+ downloads, awards, detailed solutions and approach in development applied by the applicant etc.) that should qualify as measurable and significant impact.

2. Over-Reliance on External Links:

  • Evidence Submission: While it’s clear that Tech Nation prefers all evidence to be uploaded directly rather than relying on external links, the dismissal of the evidence simply because it was on Google Drive may have led the reviewer to overlook the substantial content you provided. This approach might indicate a procedural oversight rather than an evaluation of the actual merit of your work.
  • Opportunity to Clarify: If the reviewer had concerns about the external links, they could have flagged this for you to clarify or provide additional context, rather than discounting the evidence outright.

3. Inadequate Consideration of OC2 and OC3:

  • OC2 (Recognition for Advancing the Sector): You provided strong examples of your involvement in events, voluntary work, and projects that advance the sector outside of your primary employment. The reference letters and detailed project descriptions support your role in these contributions, yet the reviewer claims there is no evidence. This suggests that they may not have fully engaged with the material or did not recognize the significance of the contributions you highlighted.
  • OC3 (Impact): The reviewer’s feedback that “claims of impact are vague” seems at odds with the detailed metrics and recognition your projects received. The success of “The " and "” game project should have been considered strong evidence of impact, particularly with the supporting reference from a credible source.

Key Points

1. Use of External Links for Supporting Evidence

I understand the board’s concern regarding the use of external links. However, the external links were necessary to verify critical evidence that could not be adequately captured through static screenshots or text alone. For example:

  • OC2 (*** App)Voluntary role:** I provided a Google Drive link to a video demonstrating the user credential fetch and update system I developed(i also provided the code in the evidence). This video was essential to show the technical complexity and my contributions to the project, which cannot be fully appreciated through screenshots alone. The sensitivity of company data prevented me from uploading these videos to public platforms like YouTube.
    OC2 (Africa Games Industry Expo/Esport tournament): I submitted screenshots of my talk, along with a YouTube link referencing media coverage of my interview in the esport tournament having over 5000 people and I was recognized by the press. These materials were provided to validate my participation and the impact of my talk on exploring career opportunities within the African gaming sector and my participation in Africa’s biggest game tournament.
    OC2 (Xbox Game Camp): I talked about being one of the 600 campers invited from all over Africa, i included video evidence hosted on Google Drive, documenting my active participation in this significant industry event. This document was accompanied by images references screenshot of my interactions with key figures, which together form a comprehensive picture of my contributions and recognition in the gaming community.

OC2 (Gamathon convention): I talked about my role as a program manager and also added reference image screenshot in the document showing my name on their official site as one of the team member highlighting my role, I showed screen shots of arranging delegate travel arrangement via email screenshot also I added a link of the reference letter from the founder just incase in a google drive

OC3 (The ***** and ******** game project): For these projects, I provided screenshots of download metrics of over 30,000 download in 3 months, video highlights YouTube link for nomination of one of the project, and game development documents. These materials, hosted on Google Drive and YouTube, were essential to substantiate the scale of impact my work had in the gaming industry. Additionally, the reference letter from the founder of the game studio, provides a detailed account of my contributions and the challenges I overcame, adding further weight to my claims.

5

Google drive link documents are in addition to the 10 evidence documents and not considered part of them.

You can appeal and try to redirect focus mainly on existing application content that is within 10 documents. There’s no certainty if the assessors will consider additional documents provided on the drive link but there’s no harm trying!

1 Like
6

I Tried to answer the reason for the 3 non-endorsement feedback I got. (Nothing that the only external document used was a reference letter for further validity needed which was dated and signed but i have sufficient evidence inside my 10 document, other external links are videos , website reference for media proof and YouTube links so you can further understand and help me out thank you.

2.1(a) Reason for Non-Endorsement: “The applicant does not meet the requirements of Optional Criteria 2. The documents relating to this criteria are additional personal statements with embedded screenshots which do not sufficiently support the claims made, or letters written specifically in support of the application again without evidence to support claims. There is no evidence that the applicant has been recognised for advancing the sector of digital technology outside of their employment.”

2.1(b) Response and Evidence Provided: In alignment with Tech Nation’s guidelines for Optional Criteria 2 (OC2), which require evidence of recognition for advancing the sector outside of my immediate employment, I provided comprehensive evidence, including:

  1. Gamathon Convention 2023:
  • Evidence Provided: A reference letter from Africacomicade was placed in Google Drive, dated and signed for verification, with a screenshot of my name under the Program Manager roles in the uploaded document. Additionally, I embedded the text link to the official website for easy verification of my involvement.
  • Relevance: This evidence demonstrates my key role in organizing a significant event for the African gaming industry, validating my contributions to sector advancement outside my immediate occupation.
  1. Unity App Development:
  • Evidence Provided: I described my work and included a code snippet overview of my work, supported by a reference video showcasing the specific code snippet test on the app. Due to Tech Nation’s platform limitations and company policy restrictions, the video was hosted on Google Drive rather than YouTube due to company policy.
  • Relevance: The code snippet and video evidence directly demonstrate my technical contributions to an app that fosters community and innovation in the gaming sector, fulfilling the OC2 requirement.
  1. Africa Games Industry Expo & GamerX Esport Tournament:
  • Evidence Provided: A picture of my stage talk at the Africa Games Industry Expo was provided, along with additional evidence of my participation, including a screenshot of a YouTube video showing my press interview during the GamerX Esport Tournament, with the YouTube coverage link embedded in the document.
  • Relevance: This evidence validates my role in advancing the gaming sector through public speaking and media engagement, which aligns with the OC2 criteria.
  1. Xbox Game Camp Africa:
  • Evidence Provided: I included reference images within the document, showing my participation alongside delegates at the event.
  • Relevance: This demonstrates recognition of my contributions within the digital technology sector, meeting the requirements of OC2.

The thorough documentation, coupled with supplementary Google Drive links for video evidence, clearly meets Tech Nation’s OC2 guidelines by showcasing my recognized contributions to the digital technology sector beyond my immediate employment.

2.2(a) Reason for Non-Endorsement: “The applicant does not meet the requirements of Optional Criteria 3. There is evidence of the applicant’s work, but not evidence to support the claims of impact. The claims of impact are also vague, such as ‘had a very big part to play in the development.’ This is not a level of impact that can be measured or demonstrated as significant on the company itself.”

2.2(b) Response and Evidence Provided: In line with Tech Nation’s guidelines for Optional Criteria 3 (OC3), which require evidence of significant impact on the digital technology sector, I provided the following:

  1. The mobile game:
  • Evidence Provided: I included screenshots of playtesting, metrics from both the App Store and Play Store for 30,000 download gotten in 4 months, and a video of me conducting playtesting at the GamerX event hosted on Google Drive.
  • Relevance: The metrics and video evidence demonstrate the measurable impact of the game, with over 30,000 downloads within four months, clearly satisfying OC3 requirements.
  1. PC Game:
  • Evidence Provided: I detailed my contributions through a game development document on Milanote, a YouTube recognition link by Invector for the game in 2021, and a screenshot of a YouTube review within the document. Additionally, I provided a reference letter as part of the 10 evidence backing both OC3 from the studio founder, highlighting my impact, such as conducting research and solving technical challenges (e.g., performance constraints, compatibility, overheating)and implenting the solutions like Level of Detail (LOD) in my level designs, Dynamic Resolution
    Scaling, also driving the game’s promotion through onsite activities, leading to significant early downloads without paid advertising. highlighting multiple award the game won
  • Relevance: This evidence meets OC3 by showing how my technical and promotional efforts led to significant industry recognition and measurable impact.

The provided documentation, supported by external links where necessary to showcase dynamic content, directly aligns with Tech Nation’s OC3 criteria, demonstrating significant and measurable impact on the sector.

2.3(a) Reason for Non-Endorsement: “The remainder of the application relies on external links to the applicant’s Google Drive. We cannot reference evidence held by the applicant as it can be changed after assessment and only use links to verify the contents of evidence which is readable and uploaded to the application.”

2.3(b) Response and Evidence Provided: The use of Google Drive links in my application was strategic and necessary to provide dynamic evidence that could not be effectively conveyed through static screenshots or text alone. Each link was supplemented by static documentation to ensure comprehensive verification:

  1. Africacomicade Reference Letter:
  • Supporting Evidence: A signed and dated reference letter was hosted on Google Drive for verification, with a screenshot provided in the document to ensure integrity.
  • Justification: This was crucial for providing authentic, third-party verification of my contributions.
  1. ##### Company App Development Video:
  • Supporting Evidence: A video demonstrating the code snippet test function I added in the document was provided via Google Drive due to the platform’s restrictions and company policy against public YouTube uploads. The video was supported by code snippets and an overview within the document.
  • Justification: The video was essential to demonstrate the technical complexity of my work, aligning with Tech Nation’s criteria.
  1. Additional Videos (GamerX, Beyond Ragnarok):
  • Supporting Evidence: Videos were necessary to demonstrate my participation in key events and the impact of my work, hosted on Google Drive. Screenshots and additional documentation were provided inside the evidence document to ensure that all evidence was fully verifiable.
  • Justification: These videos were integral to demonstrating the real-world impact and recognition of my contributions, supplementing the static evidence provided.

By carefully integrating these links with static, verifiable documentation, I ensured that all evidence met Tech Nation’s requirements while fully showcasing the scope and impact of my work.

7

Good luck @Carthy !! Keep us posted on how it goes.

8

So, you have any further information I can use to highlight the appeal. I really need all the help I can get

9

Please highlight evidence doc name, para number and line numbers in each section where you want the assessor to find what you have mentioned.

I don’t think they will consider google drive docs like mentioned in the feedback but you can still try. Even for the drive, Be specific about which document, Para, line number the assessor needs to find what you have mentioned.

10

Before putting links and google drive, did you take pictures or screenshot and then asked then share the link for further reference? If that is what you did then your appeal should clearly state that.

2 Likes
11

hello @Francisca_Chiedu Thank you for your response, Yes all pictures and screenshot was added in each document and links for future reference if needed.

12

@pahuja thank you very much, I will add that and update this forum with my appeal.

1 Like
13

Your appeal should point out that you showed pictures of your external evidence, because of the three page limitation, you provided external links for assessor to do additional verification if necessary. Point them to how you meet the immigration rule and the examples in the guide that is related to your evidence. You also want to clarify your contributions using metrics or providing context yo describe your evidence without providing new evidence

1 Like
14

Hello,
Unfortunately in an appeal, you wont be able to add new evidence. make the apppeal as tight as possible pointing them to key sections of the submitted application. But I think you have a strong application being that you already aced the Mandatory criteria. I hope you get a positive response from the appeal, but if you dont and want to apply again, you may need to rejig how you present “impact”. Downloads only does not really communicate impact, but if you can show how your work has shifted something significanty in the industry/market, that ll be better impact. I wish you the best.!!!

1 Like
15

Hello @pahuja @Francisca_Chiedu @Nsikak_John . I have drafted an appeal concerning appeal to address key point in the Feedback and i will appreciate your response. Thank you.

Feedback:
“The applicant does not meet the requirements of optional criteria 2. In the mandatory criteria we followed the link to the video of the applicant’s conference talk because video cannot be uploaded to the application and so must be externally held.
The remainder of the application relies on external links to the applicant’s google drive. We cannot reference evidence held by the applicant as it can be changed after assessment and only use links to verify the contents of evidence which is readable and uploaded to the application.
As such the documents relating to these criteria are additional personal statements with embedded screenshots which do not sufficiently support the claims made, or letters written specifically in support of the application again without evidence to support claims.
There is no evidence that the applicant has been recognized for advancing the sector of digital technology outside of their employment.”

OC2 Response:
I appreciate the panel’s acknowledgment of my compliance with the mandatory criteria. To address concerns about external links, I want to clarify that all key evidence was embedded directly in the documents, including screenshots, references, and app store metrics. External links, such as public web addresses, were provided only for supplementary verification.
In Nigeria, video game development education is rare due to infrastructural limitations and a lack of formal programs. Recognizing this gap, I initiated self-driven mentorship efforts to teach young learners, addressing a critical need in our country’s digital technology sector. My mentorship follows a structured approach, as detailed in Recommendation Letter 3.pdf (paragraph 4). Although my efforts are self-initiated, they provide essential education in an underrepresented field.
Dr. XYZ letter (Optional Criteria 3 Impact 4 Reference Letter.pdf) further validates the impact of my mentorship. In paragraphs 2 and 3, she outlines how I mentored her daughter, XYZ (my youngest student), in game design. In paragraph 4, lines 4-8, she highlights XYZ’s remarkable progress, supported by video evidence of her game design journey on YouTube and her personal website (created by XYZ). This demonstrates measurable outcomes from my mentorship aligning with OC2 criteria.

OC2 Response:
In Optional Criteria 2 Recognition 1.pdf (paragraph 2, lines 5-12), I provided evidence of my role as Program Manager for the 2023 Gamathon Convention. A website screenshot lists my name and role, with the official hyperlink to the site in page 1, paragraph 4, line 2 (“######”), confirming this recognition. Additionally, screenshots of emails sent during the planning stages demonstrate my role in coordinating travel arrangements for delegates. This six-day convention was instrumental in advancing the underrepresented video game development sector in Africa, attracting talent from across the continent.
These efforts showcase my recognized contribution to advancing digital technology through a structured program, fully aligning with OC2 criteria.
In document Optional Criteria 2 recognition 2.pdf (page 2)I provided screen shot of my appearance of my press cover with a hyperlink to the YouTube video in page 2 line 6 of the document were i shared my work and experience as a game developer in an industry lead event having over 5000 attendants from 20 country providing attendees of the gaming landscape and its evolution in Africa. This particular recognition aims at fostering group and creating awareness for the need for more game developers in Nigeria.

Second Feedback: The applicant does not meet the requirements of optional criteria 3 for the same reason. There is evidence of the applicant’s work, but not evidence to support the claims of impact. The claims of impact are also vague, such as ‘had a very big part to play in the development’.
This is not a level of impact that can be measured or demonstrated as significant on the company itself.

OC3 response:
In “Optional Criteria 3 Impact 1 Game1 Project.pdf” (page 2), I provided screenshots metric from Google Play Store and App Store showing over 30,000 downloads from release date Febuary 20 to June 2nd , with validation links on page 1, line 4. Additionally, I included a video evidence link embedded in the page 1 picture description, demonstrating my role in spearheading the game’s showcase, referenced in “Optional Criteria 3 Impact 3 Reference from founder. pdf” (page 2, paragraph 3, lines 1-6). In “Optional Criteria 3 Impact 2 Game2.pdf”(page 1, last line), I included a YouTube link showcasing the game 2 nomination for the “Made in Invector Showcase,” which received over 35,000 views in the showcase, indicating significant industry impact. I also provided YouTube review screenshots. The founder’s reference letter in “Optional Criteria 3 Impact 3 Reference from founder.pdf” (page 2, paragraph 2, lines 1-11) details my contributions to Game1, including design problem research, solution implementation, and post-launch activities, supporting my claims. The letter further validates the game’s awards and metrics (page 2, paragraph 3, lines 1-12). Additional confirmation of my impact on Beyond Ragnarok is found in page 3, paragraphs 1 and 2, supporting all my claims of impact under the OC3 criteria.
Note
The Game1 is an Afrocentric game that focus on bringing African culture to a global audience. allowing players to engage with African history and heritage through digital technology.
Game 2 explores Norse mythology post-Ragnarok, using gaming as a tool to educate and entertain, showcasing the impact of my technical contributions in bringing this cultural narrative to life.
Both games have been featured at events like Event 1, helping raise awareness of the importance of diverse cultural stories in gaming. These efforts align with OC3 criteria, demonstrating my contribution to advancing digital technology through culturally immersive games.

16

Hello, please that anyone help me review my appeal. Your response would be of great help thank you.