Help me review appeal!

I would be very grateful if someone could read at least part of the appeal and express an opinion!


  1. Two of the three mandatory recommendation letters refer to periods of work that are outside the last 5-year period of permissible evidence. One of them is also from a former colleague and is not suitable towards an assessment of the Mandatory Criteria.


  1. This is a mistake. All of the referees are describing my work done in the last 5 years. None of the referees have been a colleague of mine in the last 5 years. All the referees are clear industry leaders, which is clear from their self narratives and CVs.

With REFEREE 1, we worked together until 2016. He describes this period because according to the giude he has to explain how we met. Then on pg. 2, 1 par. he writes: “So in 2016, I received an offer to work…in Moscow. About a year after that, Igor and Viktor…launched their own project – a SASS Platform…”; he goes on to write: “Since then, I have managed to work in many large companies as a senior programmer and head of analytics department: Globus, Pharmstandard, Navicon, Sbermegamarket and Alfa Bank. Beginning of the next par.: “Igor and I both work with big data, so we still often communicate on professional topics”.

From the middle of pg. 2, Maxim describes in detail the technological innovativeness of my SAAS platform:

“The platform is based on advanced technologies of multidimensional data collation…”, and concludes at the end: “In conclusion, once again – there are many different ways to analyze data for AI purposes today, but speed and accuracy that Igor’s platform demonstrates is simply outstanding!”

REFEREE 2 starts the letter: “Igor and I met at the “Trianon Startups” event in June 2021 in Paris…”. It definitely makes it clear that he’s known me since 2021.


2.The final letter is from someone who collaborated with the applicant in 2018 and then details the project they worked on. We are unable to see in any of these letters how and why the applicant is one of the world’s leading experts at the forefront of his field.

3.The applicant claims Smart City won 2 coveted awards due to his work but there is no compelling evidence to support this.


  1. We did collaborate with REFERI 3 from 2018 to 2020 as an independent expert. He was not my colleague but our collaboration allows him to characterise me as a leader. On pg. 3, he describes my work in detail that he observed in 2020. For example:

“Igor is not just an ordinary manager. He has a unique gift of bringing together people with different types of thinking and speaking to each specialist in an accessible language”; “Thanks to his unique talent, creating products under Igor’s guidance goes several times faster!”.

At the beginning of the letter, he talks about significant international it-products that he has designed: “For example, my project Cuberten allows organizing international training camps for athletes all over the world, as well as booking major sports facilities: stadiums, soccer fields, golf courses in 15 countries…”. Yaroslav is now Head of Product Design as his CV confirms.

  1. REFEREE 3 at the end of pg. 3 writes: “I also know that thanks to Igor’s leadership, his company “Smart City”; It’s also a fact confirmed by the CEO of Smart City в OC 3.2, pg. 3: “ln 2021-2022 the company received the “industry leader” award. This award is also directly related to lgor, as he is the co-founder of the project for which these awards were given.”


  1. The interview isn’t any kind of recognition but a story on the product the applicant was working on.

  2. There are no publications authored by the applicant or keynotes in leading global events where the applicant has shaped the direction of his field. We do not find the Trianon Dialogue to be a compelling event for the purposes of meeting this criteria.

  3. Regarding OC3, the applicant has only presented self certified evidence and reference letters - under the guidelines these must be supported by third party and external evidence to support the claims. No such evidence has been provided.


  1. The interview was taken personally from me, as evidenced by the beginning of the interview “look at one of the innovative products – “Turnkey Delivery”. As Igor Shubin, deputy General Director…said…”. It contains my photo and structured in a dialogue mode. The topic of the interview was suggested by the editor of the magazine. Readers of a professional magazine are more interested in reading about innovation than personal stories. The TN guide does not provide guidance on the topic of the interview. If for some reason the interview cannot be counted, it can definitely be counted as an endorsement of my leadership in a product-led company. Somehow this fact is overlooked by the caseworker. More in MС2.

5.Trinanon was initiated by the presidents of 2 countries. The organiser of the event in MC4 on pg. 3, 2nd par. writes: “my team and I selected 26 leaders of Russia’s best innovative startups to present their best technologies to C-level representatives of major French corporations”; “The high-level event was dedicated to “high-tech innovations, the so called Industry 4.0, artificial intelligence and robotisation, 3-D printing, virtual and augmented reality, biotechnology”. Thus Trianon is a high-level event in tech.

  1. There is no such requirement in the guide, however I have such proofs. Proof 3 with the link in OC3.3 on pg. 2. This is a patent with my authorship of the “Career Growth” in the national intellectual property record system. Proof 6 contains a link and a screenshot of the work area under my name - this confirms my contribution to Career Growth. Besides, MC2 contains an extract from the state register confirming my establishment of Career Growth LLC, Skolkovo confirms. This cannot be faked.


  1. It is still unclear what are his significant contributions that he uniquely/individually contributed to and what was the resulting impact. There is no third party or media coverage of his work to be able to corroborate his claims. We are unable to award OC3.

7. OС 3.2 on pg. 3 includes a letter from the CEO of Smart City LLC where he cites specific results of my contribution: “For example, in 2019, lgor defended our company’s project in front of the Skolkovo lnnovation Center, which led to an increase in the company’s prestige and gave а powerful boost to financial success. As а result, our company’s revenue from 2019 to 2022 has grown almost 10 times! There is а significant merit of lgor in this.”. “We won the competition, and the company received а grant from the state for the development of innovation (grant) in the amount of f 229.88 thousand. 1 consider it а merit of lgor.”

My task as a C-level leader is to lead the team to success and make difficult strategic decisions. The result of my activity is the financial success of the company, which is clearly demonstrated in MC2 (pg.3 proof 8) and clearly confirmed by the CEO above. In addition OC3.1 details that I develop all product concepts and platform architecture (proofs 6,7,8,9). Without concepts, no product would exist. Programmers and designers can’t figure out for themselves what to do. I am making such decisions. Besides I am solving other strategic issues: taxes for IT, defence of innovations before the state fund, accreditation, discussion of investments (proofs 1-4) - OC3.2, pg.1. Pg.2 confirms my online advertising management, product analysis (proofs 7,8). The CEO on pg. 3 confirms my contribution. OC 3.3 shows that I am CEO of Growth LLC: pay the salary and all services, conduct financial planning and create the product (pg. 3).