Global talent digital technology — evidence portfolio review

Stage 1: Tech Nation Endorsement
1

GLOBAL TALENT DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY — EVIDENCE PORTFOLIO REVIEW
Route: Global Talent – Digital Technology | Exceptional Talent

I am seeking an independent review of my evidence portfolio. Each document is structured around the problem addressed, my personal leadership and importance in solving it, the achievement created, the resulting outcome, and the evidence available to independently verify the claim.

MC1 — NICTIB National Digital Infrastructure Leadership (2020–2023)

Problem: Nigeria required independent technical assurance of a US$117m national ICT infrastructure investment before progressing further investment.
My importance: Appointed by the 9th National Assembly House Committee on ICT/Cybersecurity as Lead Network Engineer, I led the forensic assessment of approximately 1,482km backbone fibre, 375km metropolitan infrastructure, 13 states and 350+ MDAs.
Achievement/outcome: My assessment identified structural weaknesses, fibre degradation and interconnectivity bottlenecks and informed the progression of NICTIB Phase II, reaching up to US$328m.
Evidence: Parliamentary ToR, appointment documents, audit outputs and independent validation letter.

MC2 — High-Scale Systems Architecture

Problem: Critical public and enterprise services required reliable, secure and scalable infrastructure.
My importance: I provided architecture leadership across major deployments, including National Lottery Nigeria (£/₦35m), Nigeria Customs (₦25m), SUMAS (₦40m), Globacom (₦20m), ISN (₦30m), Dotmac (₦30m) and Alpha 10 (₦22m).
Achievement/outcome: Systems supported 50,000+ users, 1,000+ concurrent connections, 5,000+ monthly transaction flows and 5,000+ students/healthcare users.
Evidence: Contracts, POs, acceptance/completion records and client validation.

MC3 — Independent Recognition

Problem: Public understanding of AI and digital infrastructure requires credible technical expertise.
My importance: I was selected and subsequently re-invited by Global TV to provide specialist commentary on AI, connectivity, productivity and economic development in 2026.
Outcome: Two independent expert broadcasts.
Evidence: Invitations, producer correspondence, broadcast records and screenshots.

OC1-1 — Adoptic/Infralytics Innovation

Problem: Connectivity data does not show whether businesses actually participate digitally.
My importance: As founder/technical architect, I created Adoptic/Infralytics-GIIS.
Achievement: 12 automated pipelines, 72,168 postcodes, UPRN analysis, 28-node/52-relationship knowledge graph and 15 composite indices, applied to 11,849 businesses.
Evidence: Architecture, source-code/development records, methodology and product outputs.

OC1-2 — UK Independent Validation

ETC Group/Edward Chawira independently evaluated Adoptic’s application to telecommunications planning.
Evidence: Signed verification and testing documentation.

OC1-3 — UK Validation & Grant

Adoptic progressed towards Enterprise made simple (Business Support Organisation)integration and received a £2,500 Tees Valley Labs Challenge Fund innovation award following external assessment.
Evidence: Integration/API records and grant award documentation.

OC2 — Wider Technology Contribution

OC2-1 — NIPSS Kuru: Two-Day Technology Speaker & Panelist

Problem: 20 Advanced technology students needed practical insight into how technology is developed, applied in real-world settings and transformed into sustainable careers and businesses.

My contribution: I was invited by the ICT Unit of the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, to serve as a Guest Mentor/Speaker at its 2026 Annual Tech Training. I contributed across two days—as a speaker on Day 1 and as a panelist on Day 2. My sessions focused on my technology journey, hands-on technology skills, data-driven innovation and how technology startups turn insights into action.

Achievement & outcome: I shared practical experience from telecommunications, digital infrastructure and data-driven software development with advanced technology students, helping connect technical learning with real-world application, innovation and sustainable technology careers. NIPSS specifically recognised my track record in these areas when inviting me. The contribution was voluntary and carried no financial honorarium.

Evidence presented: NIPSS’s signed invitation dated 17 August 2026, two-day programme and session topics, speaker/panel participation evidence, presentation materials and photographs/attendance evidence.

OC2-2 — Digital Infrastructure Skills & Knowledge Transfer

Problem: I identified a gap between theoretical technology knowledge and the practical skills required to deploy and maintain real-world telecommunications and digital infrastructure.

My contribution: I designed and delivered practical technical training focused on fibre-optic deployment, fusion splicing, OTDR testing, network topology and enterprise network implementation, using my professional infrastructure experience to transfer practical knowledge to emerging and practising technology professionals.

Achievement & outcome: I trained 100+ network engineers/technicians and contributed to technical learning reaching 1,000+ university students, helping strengthen practical digital-infrastructure capability and the wider technology talent pipeline.

Evidence presented: Training curricula and materials, participant/cohort records, certificates, photographs of me delivering the sessions, and programme documentation demonstrating my direct role in the knowledge-transfer activities.

I welcome candid feedback on criterion fit, leadership, personal attribution, innovation, independence, recency and which evidence should be strengthened or replaced before submission.

2

Your MC1 is the strongest piece here, and I’d build the mandatory case around it. A parliamentary appointment to lead a national infrastructure assessment is exactly the independent recognition the mandatory criterion asks for, because it attaches to you personally rather than to a project you delivered. Lead with it.

MC2 is where I’d expect trouble. A list of architecture deployments with contract values and user numbers reads as a record of work delivered rather than recognition of you as a leading talent. Assessors draw a hard line between delivering a project and being independently rated as a leader in the field. That evidence sits far more naturally under the optional criteria for technical contribution or commercial impact, so consider moving it and letting MC1 plus one independent piece carry the mandatory case.

The TV commentary raises the same recognition question in sharper form. The test is whether it’s independent editorial recognition of you as a sector figure, or promotional airtime you were invited to fill. Two broadcasts in a single year also runs into the sustained-recognition concern, since the criterion wants recognition built over time rather than clustered just before submission. It can support the case, but I wouldn’t lean on it as a mandatory pillar.

Your innovation evidence rests heavily on material you authored yourself for the first piece, which describes the work without independently confirming it’s novel. The independent evaluation and the innovation award are the parts that do that job, so weight the narrative towards them and treat your own documentation as supporting context.

3

Hi Akash,

Thank you again for the detailed and candid feedback. Your distinction between project delivery and independent recognition of leadership is particularly helpful, and I agree that the portfolio needs to make that distinction much clearer.

For the current MC2, would you recommend moving this evidence of my technical leadership across National Lottery Nigeria, Nigeria Customs Service, SUMAS, Globacom, ISN, Dotmac and Alpha 10, with project values of approximately ₦35m, ₦25m, ₦40m, ₦20m, ₦30m, ₦30m and ₦22m respectively, alongside substantial user, transaction and infrastructure outcomes to OC3, if appropriate, as evidence of significant technical contribution/commercial impact?

Can I add this to the MC

MC2 — Fiber X: Founder-Led Technical Leadership & Organisational Recognition

problem-

Dotmac Technologies was operating primarily through microwave-based fixed wireless infrastructure, creating limitations in scaling high-capacity broadband services.

Solution

I identified this infrastructure challenge and independently developed Fiber X, a GPON-based FTTH architecture, while contributing to Dotmac through Evolve Digital Africa.

I initially contributed voluntarily and without payment, presenting Fiber X as a technical solution to the limitations of the existing network model. Following its technical and executive review, Dotmac Technologies chose to adopt Fiber X as its reference architecture for fibre deployment. The company used the architecture to transition from a Wireless ISP to a Fiber-First ISP, expanding its fibre network and growing its consumer/customer base. The transformation also contributed to Dotmac’s development as an award-winning broadband provider in Nigeria.

The architecture subsequently supported 150+ km of metropolitan fibre, 15+ transmission/base stations and connectivity for 1,000+ homes, schools, businesses and public institutions, alongside the development of a repeatable fibre engineering approach and training of 100+ technicians.

Evidence

  • Dotmac’s award/recognition evidence, demonstrating the business outcome;
  • The formal CEO confirmation letter, independently confirming my original contribution, voluntary involvement, adoption of Fiber X, the company’s transition to a Fiber-First ISP, customer-base growth, my subsequent leadership roles and the resulting organisational recognition.

MC3 – Global TV

I also wanted to clarify that the Global TV appearances were editorial interviews, not paid promotional placements.

OC1 – Adoptic

I have a telecommunications expert validation of my product novel and relevant. Also I am currently intergrating the product into a business support organization serving Tees valley combine authority, so am getting a letter of partnership from the CEO.

4

Yes, OC3 is the right home for that evidence. The criterion asks for proven commercial or economic impact, so contract values, user numbers and transaction volumes sit naturally there. Reframe each entry away from what you delivered towards the impact it produced, and it earns its place under OC3. Delivery framing is what kept it out of the mandatory criterion in the first place.

Fiber X carries the same problem as the old MC2. The recognition attaches to Dotmac as an award-winning provider with a growing customer base, not to you personally, and a CEO confirmation letter reads as a recommendation rather than independent recognition. It is a strong innovation and commercial story though, so place it under OC1 for the novel architecture or OC3 for the transition it drove. Apply the test: would any of this still stand as recognition of you if Dotmac vanished tomorrow?

Your editorial clarification helps, and it is worth stating plainly in the document itself. The concern that remains is recency, since two broadcasts in one year reads as clustered rather than sustained. It can support the mandatory case, but let MC1 stay the anchor.

The expert validation and the partnership letter are exactly what OC1 needs, because they confirm the work is novel and adopted independently of your own account of it. Weight the narrative towards those two and treat your own documentation as supporting context.

6

@Joe1

Trust you’re good. Before I can give you meaningful feedback, I need to understand a bit more about your background. How many years of experience do you have, and in what discipline? Also, are you currently working in a tech company or a non‑tech organisation? These basics help shape the right guidance from the very beginning.

On your evidence, the NICTIB National Digital Infrastructure Leadership (2020–2023) can work, but it reads more like a national project. For MC, the focus is on what you did in the sector and the recognition you received for it, whether national or international. The key thing is that the impact should be on the technology sector, not just solving a national problem with technology. If you can clearly connect your contribution to sector relevance, then it can be okay. Your assessment documents, structural weaknesses, Parliamentary ToR, appointment letters, won’t show how you personally led or oversaw the project as a Network Engineer. For MC2 (High‑Scale Systems Architecture), what they want to see is how you directed a company, a team, or product’s development within a tech company, but with sector focus . Listing multiple companies makes it look like consultancy work, and metrics like “50,000+ users” or “5,000+ monthly transactions” don’t show leadership. You need to demonstrate how you led the technical direction. Also, mentioning revenue from those companies won’t help, because Tech Nation won’t accept financial claims without evidence and I am sure your don’t have access to their records. From experience, Tech Nation doesn’t take statements at face value, everything must be backed by solid proof.

For M3, being invited as an expert is good. But you need to show the invitation email or letter, why you were invited, what you spoke about, a picture, and ideally a link to the video. Even though they may not click it, psychologically it strengthens credibility. Engagement metrics like views or comments can also help.

Your OC1 has real innovation potential if you present it properly. You’re addressing a recognised gap in digital participation measurement using a technical approach that doesn’t exist in standard datasets. But I need to see your architecture, source code or development records, methodology, and product outputs to confirm that it can truly qualify as innovation. If not presented clearly, they may dismiss it as just a methodology. The ETC evidence is good, but the innovation itself must come from Adoptic/Infralytics‑GIIS. The ETC evidence should only serve as independent validation after you’ve demonstrated the innovation.

OC1‑3 (UK Validation & Grant) shows practical application, but it is not innovation on its own.

For OC2, speaking to 20 people won’t meet the impact threshold. Also, a session focused mainly on your career story may not demonstrate sector advancement. You need to show how your contribution helped them gain real technical understanding or apply technology in meaningful ways that is capable of advancing the sector. “Panelist” means reviewing, judging, or discussing others’ work, what you described doesn’t reflect that, so you’ll need to adjust it.

For your Digital Infrastructure Skills & Knowledge Transfer, where did this happen? Was it part of a structured programme? Were you invited as a recognised expert? Can you show evidence of the 100+ engineers and 1,000+ students you reached? And were these physical sessions? Because online mentoring is usually dismissed.

You have some strong elements, especially in OC1, if you can clearly demonstrate the innovation with evidence. You also have good external validation. But overall, your MC and OC2 still need to be worked on, based on recent feedback.

All the best.

7

I would say the portfolio has a clear structure based on the information provided. The main thing I would focus on is whether each document independently proves your personal leadership, recognition and impact, rather than the scale of the projects alone.

MC1 looks like the most substantial evidence because it combines a senior appointment,
national-scale infrastructure and independent/public-sector validation. Make
sure the evidence clearly demonstrates your own leadership and contribution,
rather than simply establishing the scale or importance of the NICTIB project.
MC3 is useful for recent recognition, although two broadcasts alone may need
stronger context around why you were selected and what recognition they
demonstrate. MC2 has impressive project scale, but the key risk is proving your
individual architectural contribution rather than simply the size/value of the contracts.

For the optional criteria, OC1 is potentially credible, particularly with independent UK validation and the grant, but make sure the evidence clearly explains what was genuinely new or innovative about the approach and your personal role in developing
it, rather than relying on technical complexity alone. OC2 fits well in
principle; the NIPSS engagement is particularly useful because it is recent,
invited and outside normal employment. The training evidence can also work if
the documentation clearly establishes your direct role and the scale of the
knowledge transfer.

Overall, I would strengthen independent recognition, personal attribution and
evidence of outcomes before submission. Also, keep the portfolio factual and understated—let the evidence demonstrate leadership rather than repeatedly describing the portfolio as “strong” or “significant.”

8

Thank you @Akash_Joshi @Raphael and Noddy

I took note of your feedback to redraft my documents again.

Brief Background

I am a Digital Infrastructure Systems Architect and Software Founder with over a decade of experience designing, auditing, and protecting massive, national-scale communication networks.
My expertise lies in Infrastructure Intelligence—which means I don’t just build the physical hardware, data centers, or fiber-optic cables that power the internet; I build the smart, automated data pipelines and software tools that monitor, protect, and predict how these massive networks should be laid out to maximize economic output and prevent critical system failures.
I am currently scaling my proprietary software platform, Adoptic, within the United Kingdom tech ecosystem through my active UK-registered company, Nexintell Limited.

My Restructured 10-Document Evidence Framework

1. MANDATORY CRITERIA (MC): Proof of Recognized Tech Leadership

  • Document 1: National Digital Infrastructure Governance (NICTIB Audit)

    The Problem: The Federal Government of Nigeria had spent US$117 Million on a 1,482 km national fiber network (Phase I), but legislative leaders had zero independent visibility into whether the network was secure, operational, or actually generating revenue. They were about to sign a new US$328 Million sovereign loan for Phase II but faced severe technical uncertainty.

    Why I Was Recognized as Leader: The 9th Nigerian National Assembly bypassed regular agency employees and formally appointed me as the Lead Network Engineer and Principal Forensic Auditorunder the constitutional authority of Section 88, recognizing my absolute technical independence and top-tier expertise.

    My Technical Solution: I engineered a custom forensic testing and data-assurance framework to stress-test data centers and physically audit the fiber loop serving 350+ Federal Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs), uncovering hidden structural flaws and fiber degradation layers missed by previous civil oversight.

    The National Outcome: My final forensic report was formally adopted by the legislature as the official evidence base used to authorize, restructure, and greenlight the US$328 Million Phase II national infrastructure funding.

    Independent Recognition Evidence: Official parliamentary Terms of Reference (ToR) + Signed validation letter from the House Committee Deputy Chairman..

    Document 2 (Railway Security Technology Innovation):

  • The Problem: The 240 km Abuja–Kaduna railway corridor was facing constant national security threats, vandalism, and terrorism. Traditional electronic security systems were impossible to scale because they required thousands of individually powered sensor blocks deployed along remote, unpowered tracks stretching for hundreds of kilometers.

  • Why I Was Recognized as Leader: Krisbass Ventures (critical infrastructure security experts for the Central Bank) approached me specifically due to my track record in advanced fiber optics, appointing me as their Principal Technical Spokesman to represent the technology before the Minister of Transportation and the Director General of the Nigerian Railway Corporation (NRC).

  • My Technical Solution: I invented a Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) system architecture that transformed the pre-existing telecom fiber strand along the tracks into a continuous, passive acoustic sensor. My design allowed the system to monitor sections exceeding 80 km without requiring any intermediate field power or signal hardware, automatically isolating the acoustic signatures of human footsteps, digging, or cable cutting.

  • The National Outcome: My technical defense before the Ministry moved this from a conceptual security design into an official, multi-party national infrastructure partnership blueprint with the state railway corporation.

  • Independent Recognition Evidence: Krisbass Ventures confirmation letter + Technical design blueprint sheets submitted to the State.

    Document 3 (High-Security Network Architecture):

    • The Problem: Deploying fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) internet grids in highly sensitive military zones where standard commercial setups fail due to extreme security risks, data isolation rules, and zero tolerance for network downtime.

    • Why I Was Recognized as Leader: MultiHedge Engineering and Dr. Lanre Modupe-Samuel (former Divisional Head of Fiber Rollout at Globacom) headhunted me to take absolute technical ownership of regional network access updates across complex environments.

    • My Technical Solution: I designed and executed a custom, high-security FTTH network architecture specifically for the Nigerian Air Force, adapting physical fiber routing and secure data access parameters to withstand rigorous defense-domain compliance.

      The National Outcome: My architectural design eliminated communication bottlenecks and stabilized high-speed network reliability for over 5,000 military personnel, academic researchers, and staff.

    • Independent Recognition Evidence: Signed professional validation from the Globacom executive + Air Force project deployment records.

      Document 4 (Multinational Broadcast Thought Leadership): I was organically selected as a recurring live studio technology expert by Global TV, a major multinational satellite network broadcasting to 54+ African countries on premium networks DSTV (Channel 365) and StarTimes (Channel 276). I delivered live masterclasses breaking down how artificial intelligence can optimize internet productivity and data frameworks in resource-constrained markets.

2. OPTIONAL CRITERIA 1 (OC1): Proven Product-Led Innovation

  • Document 5 (Adoptic Flagship Platform Core):

    • The Problem: The UK is investing billions into Project Gigabit, but legacy mapping tools (like Ofcom dashboards) only show where a physical internet cable is laid. They cannot tell if a local business is actually online, causing cities to waste millions on unused infrastructure while digital deprivation worsens.

    • My Technical Solution: I founded Nexintell Limited (Company No. ) and coded Adoptic, the UK’s first Business Digital Inclusion Intelligence platform. Built on 12 automated Python data pipelines, a custom Neo4j knowledge graph (28 node types, 52 relationship types), and a FastAPI backend, Adoptic ingests telecom data and socio-economic deprivation metrics down to individual postcodes and building numbers.

    • The National Outcome: It automatically maps exactly where connectivity exists but business participation is absent, telling city councils precisely where to intervene and calculating the economic return of an expansion before breaking ground.

    • Evidence: Production data architecture maps + Companies House Incorporation Certificates.

      Document 6 (Independent UK Enterprise Validation):

      • The Problem: Proving that an innovative software platform actually works in the real world and holds tangible value for active UK telecommunications planning operators.

      • My Technical Solution: I deployed Adoptic into a live testing environment for Edward ……, Director of ETC Group Limited (Company No. ), who utilized my real-time postcode data ingestion layers to stress-test fiber rollout models in North East England.

      • The National Outcome: The trial successfully uncovered hidden digital deprivation loops, and the director formally certified to Tech Nation that my methodology is “genuinely novel within the UK planning landscape” and directly guided their multi-million pound infrastructure investment choices.

      • Evidence: Signed expert review letter from ETC Group Director + Matching UK Companies House footprint.Document 6 (Independent UK Enterprise Validation): Objective proof of live product testing inside the UK telecommunications market. My software platform was deployed and tested by ETC Group Limited, an established UK infrastructure consultancy, whose director formally certified that my methodology is “genuinely novel within the UK telecommunications planning landscape” and directly guided their infrastructure investment choices

        Document 8 (UK Enterprise Alliance & Venture Backing):

        • The Problem: Transitioning an independent software prototype into an interconnected, venture-backed enterprise application recognized by regional government bodies.

        • My Technical Solution: I won a formal innovation award and grant through the Tees Valley Labs Challenge Fund 2025–2026 following a competitive panel review, and subsequently leveraged that momentum to sign a joint-venture development roadmap with a Business support organization , led by CEO .

        • The National Outcome: I am leading the technical integration to embed Adoptic directly as the automated data intelligence core inside their broader platform

        • Evidence: TVCA Challenge Fund Award + Formal Letter of Intent (LOI) signed by the EMS CE0

          OPTIONAL CRITERIA 2 (OC2) — Voluntary Sector Contribution

          Document 7 (Sovereign-Level National Policy Mentorship):

            • The Problem: National policy training institutes require high-level, real-world industry leaders to train their technology cohorts on how to scale software architectures globally, but face budget restrictions for specialized non-commercial training.

            • My Technical Solution: Operating on a strictly voluntary, uncompensated basis carrying zero financial honorarium, I served as an expert Guest Mentor and Technical Speaker for the ICT Unit of the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru—Nigeria’s highest federal think-tank. I delivered intensive instructional tracks teaching software professionals how to transform complex network data into scalable, commercialized technology products.

            • The National Outcome: Successfully upskilled national policy and technology cohorts in advanced telecommunications frameworks and cross-border SaaS scaling strategies.

            • Evidence: Official NIPSS invitation letter carrying an explicit non-commercial compliance clause signed by Head of ICT.

              Document 9 (National Capacity Building Frameworks):

            • The Problem: A massive, industry-wide shortage of telecommunications field technicians who understand the practical engineering processes of fusion splicing, fiber testing, and network troubleshooting.

            • My Technical Solution: I stepped forward independently to address this ecosystem talent bottleneck, utilizing my own engineering equipment and funding outside of my daily business hours to design and deliver hands-on field workshops covering Outside Plant (OSP) deployment topology, fusion splicing, and optical testing configuration.

            • The National Outcome: Between 2023 and 2024, I directly trained and certified 100+ network field engineers and authored fiber-optics training modules that reached 1,000+ university students nationally to bridge the gap between academic theory and enterprise implementation.

            • Evidence: Multi-year training modules, workshop photos, and certified candidate rosters.

OC3

  • Document 10 (Gross Corporate Order Book Valuation): Proof of continuous executive and signing authority as Managing Director of Evolve Digital Africa Limited, detailing an active portfolio of major B2B infrastructure contract designs: ₦35M (National Lottery platform), ₦25M (Customs payment layer), ₦40M (SUMAS Multi-Campus Data Hub), ₦30M (ISN US Embassy SLA), and ₦20M (Globacom/Deloitte project).

Thank you and looking forward to your feedback

9

@Joe1 Great! But I still feel your appointment as Lead Network Engineer and Principal Forensic Auditor doesn’t really sit within the tech sector. Also, the ToR and appointment letters are internal employer documents. Tech Nation doesn’t place much weight on employer‑employee evidence like that. The National Assembly isn’t giving you national recognition here, they simply hired you to do a job. And be careful with the narrative: In most countries National Assembly are law makers and have nothing to do with execution of national projects, it’s Ministries that run projects. The National Assembly mainly has oversight functions, they don’t allocate national projects. So, this look like they employed you to do their assembly project.

Your descriptions are also too long and not rightly stating what, I believe they look out for in MC, for instance, see the below in a different context:

I led the development of Fosign, an improved version of e‑signature technology that is now widely used in the sector. It was featured in ABC Dailies following user comments online about how the product solved their problems and its affordability. As the Lead Software Engineer, I led a team of 10 over a 16‑month (16 sprints) project. The product has now been adopted by 500,000 users within three months of launch.

Here are my evidence:
Technical evidence that belongs to lead engineers like version control, email correspondence with team members, stakeholders, third‑party companies, GitHub repositories, media publications about the product (non‑promotional), and a letter from an executive confirming the commercial impact.

The above example shows

  1. Sector relevance of what you did
  2. How many people you led and what you led them to do
  3. Recognition of what you did and why it was or you were recognised
  4. Impact

Whilst your explanation has most of these, it’s buried within too long stories.

It’s better to present your evidence by showing them exactly what they look for, rather than explaining around it. For MC, they want to see: how you led the development of a product that has sector impact or benefit, and whether you were recognised for it. Your presentation should focus on that.

On innovation, what you did has innovative elements, but production data architecture maps and Companies House incorporation certificates won’t demonstrate innovation. Your innovation award and grant can validate it, but you still need to show the actual evidence of the innovation they validated.

Your presentation feels overwhelming because there’s too much information. You have some good evidence already, but I’d still suggest you get a few more convincing pieces to increase your chances.

All the best.

10

Thank you Raphael. This feedback is noted