I had to do a bit of research on the reason why a criterion gets accepted in one application and gets rejected in another. Whilst I was first tempted to think it could be inconsistencies in the standard of appeal, I got to understand what could be the cause and what applicants can do to avoid it.
The applicant notes that the same evidence was accepted in a prior application. Each application is assessed independently by its assessors. A prior determination does not bind the current assessment, and the current assessment has been conducted in accordance with the published criteria.
With feedback like this, one cannot rely on an accepted criterion in a previous application to predict or expect acceptance in a new application.
To be fair to Tech Nation, A criterion should consists at least two evidence sets (let’s say MC1 and MC2). But an average applicant submits at least three in a criterion (MC1, MC2, and MC3). So, except for very strong evidence or the ones they specifically mentioned, it is almost impossible to know which evidence brought about the acceptance decision. They complement each other. So when reapplying, due to situations beyond or within our control, like “TN stripped off an evidence type from the criterion(online mentoring) or you changed a previous employment‑based proof to a new startup because it was more relevant for the time, we end up changing something that perhaps was the determining factor, which the others complemented.
My suggestions:
If a criterion was accepted before, instead of replacing or removing an evidence therein, add to it. If you have GitHub contributions, contribute more. Do more of everything in that criterion. Don’t replace, add more to it.
You also want to use consistency bias to increase the chances of them saying yes again.This is a psychological tendency where people feel pressure to stay consistent with their past decisions, statements, or behaviours, even when the situation has changed.
You want to say something like:
Evidence of speaking
I want to thank you for accepting this same evidence in my last application; however, I have had more opportunities and have spoken at more events, also added to the previously accepted.
Events as presented in my last accepted application
1
2
3
New speaking added
4.
As you can see, it will be hard for even you reading this to say no if you were the reviewer, except if there are indeed new reasons beyond doubt that should warrant the rejection.
It can be discouraging. You have come this far guys, and it is not over until you win.
Strategies work!
All the best.