Feedback on evidence for Exceptional promise- 2nd Application

[iqra]

I am aiming to apply for the Exceptional promise stage 1 soon with 2nd application. Received reject with all MC, OC1, OC3 rejected in January 2026. Appealed but it was also rejected.
Then i started working on my profile again and now i am planning to apply in coming weeks again…
Could I please get some feedback on my planned evidence structure? The story I aim to communicate is this -

For my field - Digital tech, Worked as Software engineer in Service Led Company for 3 Years. Then shifted to Product led Company and working since last 3.5 Years. Designed, owned and innovated two major digital healthcare platforms integrated with AI, successfully deployed in NHS pilot program and Government of UAE.

Education -
Masters in computer system engineering

Evidence list -

Mandatory criteria -

1. Nominated for a tech Award which will held in November 2026 (but I will apply for endorsement before that)
2. Invitation as speaker on a tech conference being held in September 2026. (but I will apply for endorsement before that).
3. Article about my work in Digital Health tech in Gulf & UK published in a top Gulf Newspaper.
4. Receiving higher salary among top 5% people of my position & field.

OC1 - Aiming to show Proof of innovation -

1. Architected & successfully launched a platform deployed in NHS pilot program in 2023, Letter of deployment from NHS received mentioning my name.

2.Architected & successfully launched a platform deployed in Department of Health of UAE. Letter from Govt body received mentioning my name.

3. Letters of innovated work from top AI specialist who reviewed my work blueprints of above-mentioned platforms.

OC2 - Work outside employment -

1. 12 months mentorship in University mentorship programs in UAE.
2. I was Proctor for IEEEXtream 19.0 in 2025.
3. Published an article on AI in Healthcare in one of the top newspapers of UAE.
4. Published a second article on AI in Healthcare in one another top newspapers of UAE.
5. Google scholar profile with 20+ publications and 106 citation.
6. Published an article on comparison of UAE & UK AI market issues in one of the top Tech magazines of UAE.

I have an issue that most of the above evidence like media publications, nominations for award & speaking opportunity are achieved after first application refusal in Janaury 2026.

How does my application look overall? Do you think it stands a chance for exceptional promise? Would you suggest any re-ordering or further breaking down any evidences?

Any guidance will be super helpful!

@Akash_Joshi @Raphael

[Akash_Joshi]

MC has a timing problem. An award nomination for an event in November and a speaking invitation for September aren’t recognition yet - they’re prospects. Assessors evaluate what has already been validated, not what might happen. If you submit before those events, those two pieces are dead weight. The newspaper article and salary evidence would need to carry the entire MC, and salary alone rarely lands for Promise route.

OC1 looks solid if the NHS and UAE letters explicitly attribute the innovation to you by name. The AI specialist review adds credibility. Keep those tight.

OC2 is overloaded. Six pieces dilutes the narrative. The Google Scholar profile with 106 citations is your strongest external validation - lead with that. Pick two others max (the proctorship is weak; the mentorship is borderline). Three focused pieces beat six scattered ones.

Either wait until after your speaking slot in September so you have actual delivered outcomes, or restructure MC around evidence that exists today.

[iqra]

Thanks for yout time to reply. For MC, Even if i submit the followings wont work for any future engaments…

1. Confirmation email from organizer.
2. A post of nomination/selection/finalist on Social media from the organizer.
3. Award Nomination letter from organizer for selection.

[Raphael]

Hi @iqra, sorry about your last application outcome but this is another opportunity to apply with more experience and a stronger profile. Was your digital healthcare platform part of what you submitted in your previous application? If yes, what was the feedback?

Owning a platform that has been deployed in the NHS and the Government of the UAE shows that you built something valuable, and these two organisations are credible. This demonstrates recognition for what you have done.

For your MC, a nomination can count as a recognition element, but you must clearly show what you were nominated for and what you did that led to the nomination and evidence of the event. Since this nomination is happening in the future, it is not valid for this timeline. The same applies to your speaking invitation. For the article, were you invited or approached to write about your work? That is what demonstrates recognition. Then the reputation of the media outlet, the impact, and clear evidence that you are the author (title, date, byline) all matter. Salary can support your MC, but it is not sufficient on its own. You still need to add some evidence of voluntary work that shows contribution to the sector beyond paid employment.

For OC1, the platform you architected and launched for the NHS pilot can be strong, and the deployment letter mentioning your name can work. However, you must show what you architected and provide evidence of the deployment you can blur or hide sensitive NHS details. The same applies to the UAE Department of Health platform. Beyond descriptions, you need to show evidence of your actual work. A letter from a specialist in your field can support this. If you present these pieces strategically, your OC1 looks promising.

For OC2, your 12‑month mentorship were you invited? Can you show evidence of the mentoring activities, artefacts? Your role as a proctor/supervisor for IEEEXtream can support, but in terms of relevance and sector impact, it may be weak, so it can support. Publishing articles can be useful, but again, were you invited? And can you show how these articles contributed to the sector through reads, downloads, comments, or reposts? Your 20+ publications and 106 citations are good, but the topics and the journals matter. They must be relevant to the sector and ideally include a mix of mid‑tier and top‑tier journals.

Regarding your concern:

I have an issue that most of the above evidence like media publications, nominations for award & speaking opportunity are achieved after first application refusal in January 2026.

Since not all your evidence falls within this short timeframe, and these achievements are not just days or a few weeks before your application, they should be fine. However, it all depends on how strategically you present them.

And on your question:

How does my application look overall? Do you think it stands a chance for exceptional promise? Would you suggest any re-ordering or further breaking down any evidences?

Your MC is weak. Your OC1 can be strong because of the credibility of the organisations involved, but you must clearly show evidence of your innovations. For OC2, your descriptions are clear, but you did not specify the actual evidence you will present for most of the listed.

To give deeper and more useful suggestions, I would need to see the actual evidence you plan to submit. You are in the right direction, I suggest you take some time to prepare better.

All the best.

[iqra]

Thanks @raphael for your detailed reply. I really appreciate that. here is the reply for your questions asked.

1. I have 2 years gap in my bsc & master’s degree program which i didn’t explained in my CV. For my first application one digital platform was part of the evidence, but it was not pitched correctly by me. Tech nation refused to understand the gap between my BSc and master’s degree (2013-2015) and said it was hidden because I want to count 5 years for promise route etc. so they assessed my application on exceptional talent rather than exceptional promise and refused full MC, OC1 & OC3. My 2nd platform is deployed after first application refusal so it will be a new addition.
   
   

3. For my future speaking & award nomination, I am invited to apply by the committee and then selected. All trial emails are available for submission.
4. I was invited for 12 week mentorship by the university under their industry expert mentorship program. Details official letter from the university is available which includes project name, mentees names, project outcome, mentorship duration, my detailed role and duration (start & end dates).
5. I want to clearify that the NHS letter on my platform pilot program in NHS was addressed to my company CEO on successful pilot program and praising the architecture of the platform and the work of its architectures (indirectly me). then CEO issued my official letter that i architecture the full architecture of the platform alone.

[Raphael]

Thank you for sharing, and to be honest, this is one of the reasons why context matters more than the long lists of content most applicants post on this platform.

You said:

“…so they assessed my application on Exceptional Talent rather than Exceptional Promise and refused full MC, OC1 & OC3.”

To be fair to Tech Nation, from the feedback I’ve seen, when they have concerns about the chosen pathway (Promise or Talent), they usually state that they still assessed the applicant based on the pathway selected. So it’s important to note that you were not rejected because they applied a higher standard, but because of the strength of the evidence presented.

If you were invited to apply to speak and not approached directly due to your expertise or recognition, that becomes weaker. However, if the selection was based on a clear, standardised criteria, it can still work. Invitation emails alone won’t demonstrate what you actually did. They may show recognition, but you still need to demonstrate your contribution and how it impacted or advanced the sector. The structured university mentorship can work too, but what exactly did you mentor them on?

The NHS letter without your name on it weakens the evidence. You may need to get a reference letter from the CEO whose name appears on it, clearly stating what how you led the development, deployment, and integration.

All the best.

[iqra]

I was approached directly by the organizer for the opportunity as a speaker on AI Conference being held in September 2026. I accepted their request and then received a confirmation email from them. What other things I need to collect to make it evidence?

I have received official letter from the CEO same as you mentioned.

[Raphael]

@iqra I will need to see what you are actually presenting to give more useful suggestions and guidance.