Please, i need help in making a case for my exceptional promise.
Last week they sent my rejection for exceptional promise and i was very sad.
They sent a feedback that they didnt endorse me and the reasons are below:
Global Talent review
Regarding their overall professional history and references, the applicant presents an interesting career pivot from journalism to technology. However, eligibility for Exceptional Promise is conditional on their career transition to a dedicated AI software developer role beginning in May 2024, as stated on their LinkedIn profile. Consequently, any activities or evidence dated prior to May 2024 are not eligible for consideration under this pathway.
Note; My CV also shows October 2023 to date but my AI app was in May 2024
The applicant’s public GitHub profile shows no meaningful activity, and their Google Scholar profile reveals a lack of significant academic impact, with minimal citations for their published work.
Note: I didn’t submit github or google scholar profile as evidence but it was on my cv.
Furthermore, the letters of recommendation are not considered credible; they are unspecific regarding the dates of the applicant’s work and appear to use copy-pasted images for signatures, which raises concerns about their authenticity.
Note: This is really sad because on reviewer had to sign stamped is already existing signature.
Regarding the Mandatory Criterion, the evidence shows some early signals of potential but falls short of demonstrating national or international recognition. The speaking engagements presented are not at high-profile conferences, and my established company registered in 2023 are too nascent to have established significant recognition in the field.
Note: I dont realy understand what they meant by too nascent to have established significant recognition in the field.
Evidence such as Google Analytics screenshots is not considered compelling proof of recognition. Much of the evidence submitted relates to work conducted before the May 2024 eligibility cut-off for this Exceptional Promise application and has therefore not been considered.
Note: This is a bit confusing as well. I screenshot my app google analytics which shows the number of people(over 1600 users and more than 25k activities using the app to show proof that i fit for the the exceptional promise.
Regarding the Optional Criteria, the evidence was insufficient to meet the requirements of any two criteria. Whilst the applicant selected all four optional criteria for consideration, and all were assessed, they failed to meet the high bar for any of them. In relation to OC1, the evidence for the AI product does not demonstrate a significant technical, commercial, or entrepreneurial contribution that advances the field.
Note; This is the app I built myself that professional in research, education are using for free and less payment. So its still a bit confusing.
In relation to OC2, there was insufficient evidence to suggest the applicant is recognised as a potential leading talent. In relation to OC3, there is no evidence of meaningful commercial traction or impact for their product, JournoTECH.
Note: I also submitted evidence of the someone who is benefited from the app and also my AI trainings.
Finally, in relation to OC4, the applicant’s academic contributions do not meet the required standard. The research papers were published in journals that are not considered reputable and lack any meaningful citations. The supporting academic letters are further undermined by the use of what appear to be copy-pasted signatures, damaging their credibility. In conclusion, we do not endorse this applicant for the Exceptional Promise pathway.
Note; This person also has an already stamped email he used and not docusign.
I strongly feel, they have not pay attention to my evidence because they feel as someone from non techbackground it wont be easy to start tech role within a 2years and build product. Meanwhile I also told them my tech journey started in 20218, when i was trained how to build website.
They also failed to talk about my Health Ap i built which i sent them evidence. This is also in beta phase and I thought the exceptional promise also need to show what they are building that will help the people. This app too will help as well.
Please, does anyone have idea on how to present my case?
I’d be happy to review your application and rejection feedback if you’re seeking a professional (paid) consultation to assess the feedback and guide you on whether to appeal or prepare a new application.
Please note that the rejection feedback is entirely based on the content and structure of your original submission. Therefore, without reviewing your actual application and how the evidence was presented, it’s not possible to provide an accurate or fair evaluation.
That said, based on the details you’ve shared above, here are some preliminary observations:
• It appears that only evidence created or dated after May 2024 was considered by Tech Nation, as that seems to fall within their eligibility window.
• You seem to have applied under all optional criteria, which goes against Tech Nation’s guidelines. This approach usually weakens the application, as it spreads the evidence too thin across multiple criteria instead of strengthening two chosen ones.
• The letters of recommendation (LORs) appear to lack mention of specific dates and duration of professional association — a common red flag for assessors.
• The conferences mentioned may not meet Tech Nation’s bar for high-profile industry recognition. Similarly, the company’s industry impact seems limited based on what you’ve shared. This will depend on the quality and credibility of the evidence submitted to demonstrate your startup’s recognition, even if it’s relatively young.
• Simply showing that an app has users doesn’t meet the threshold for demonstrating exceptional promise. The strength of this evidence depends on how it was positioned and which optional criterion it supported. For instance, if used under the “impact” criterion, you’d need to evidence traction through revenue, sales, or measurable commercial success.
• If your innovation wasn’t clearly defined or supported by third-party validation, that’s a concern. Innovation must be substantiated with evidence such as product differentiation, market validation, or expert references — especially if there’s limited revenue traction.
• Evidence like individual testimonials or unstructured training sessions (without formal mentee selection or structured programs) tend to be considered weak unless presented with clear context and measurable impact.
• Lastly, unsigned or non-digitally authenticated letters (without DocuSign or equivalent) are non-compliant with the guidelines and can lead to immediate disqualification of that evidence.
If you’d like, I can review your full rejection feedback and evidence documents to provide a detailed, criteria-wise evaluation and strategic roadmap for your next steps (appeal or fresh submission).
I am sorry to hear your outcome. It seems you have a good profile. However, applying for 4 optionals in one application strategy was not the best as it reduces your chances to get endorsed 1. By not following the guidelines in the tn guide 2. Each criteria will have max of 2 evidences which is challenging to be endorsed unless they are really strong evidences.
From the feedback i can see the main issue of the rejection is the structure and organisation of evidences. You didnt allow having depth and meaningful explanation (assumed rom the feedback) for any evidence as your strategy was to cover everything possible but the panel wont know much about anything unless it is well explained and detailing why and how each evidence meet the criteria.
Id suggest appealing to further feedback and in your appeal better to focus on the strongest two optional to strongly and deeply explain how you believe they meet the guidelines instead of adjusting all the optional again which is 1. Not required to meet all optional to get endorsed 2 will defo weaken your application again.
If you are confused overwhelmed or need assist! Course seek an expert support to get fresh and better application
@ELF I am sorry to hear about the outcome. You appear to have some good evidence for the promise. However, the main issue likely lies in how your evidence were presented vis-a-vis the criteria. In all honesty their feedback is clear, and one won’t be able to respond to them, except one sees the actual evidence you submitted, as most of the evidence, as mentioned here did not rightly meet the criteria.
Another issue seems like you tried applying under more optional criteria. You were supposed to choose two OCs.
I would recommend focusing on your strongest two optional criteria in your appeal or work on this feedback and the outcome of the appeal for a more convincing reapplication.