I applied GTV ( tech nation) exceptional talent. I have selected oc1and OC3 . However I have provided evidences for all OC(1-4). Feedback mentioned that I should opted oc4( instead of OC3), however reviewer assessed on OC3 ( which is low impact). I am thinking to send an appeal to assess me under OC2 & OC4( instead of OC1 and OC3). Is it possible and allowed? For Mandatory criteria, Tech Nation suggest that my innovation and commercialization is towards research and no impact in digital technology ( I used satellite remote sensing and Geospatial technology using Python Library and big data analytics)
About me: PhD , with 25 publications & citations( 600+). Currently working with Reinsurance company (Sept 2020 to present)(R&D), building catastrophe models, Climate Tech, Geospatial Tech, remote sensing. Recognised for developing 2 innovative products ( new revenue generation) and got internal award. Also won external project grant ( 2018-2020) from the government to work towards climate tech & water science. Also outside work, I am individual researcher, journal reviewer, invited to speak in AgroTech panel ( over Geospatial and satellite remote sensing application in agriculture). Unfortunately my application got rejected. I may have confused the reviewer with lot of evidences (submitted in all 4 OCs). But the reviewer assessed only OC1&OC3( I got confused and selected them). Please provide your suggestions if I should appeal and request them to assess oc2& oc4.
I applied GTV ( tech nation) exceptional talent. I have selected oc1and OC3 . However I have provided evidences for all OC(1-4). Feedback mentioned that I should opted oc4( instead of OC3), however reviewer assessed on OC3 ( which is low impact). I am thinking to send an appeal to assess me under OC2 & OC4( instead of OC1 and OC3). Is it possible and allowed? For Mandatory criteria, Tech Nation suggest that my innovation and commercialization is towards research and no impact in digital technology ( I used satellite remote sensing and Geospatial technology using Python Library and big data analytics)
About me: PhD , with 25 publications & citations( 600+). Currently working with Reinsurance company (Sept 2020 to present)(R&D), building catastrophe models, Climate Tech, Geospatial Tech, remote sensing. Recognised for developing 2 innovative products ( new revenue generation) and got internal award. Also won external project grant ( 2018-2020) from the government to work towards climate tech & water science. Also outside work, I am individual researcher, journal reviewer, invited to speak in AgroTech panel ( over Geospatial and satellite remote sensing application in agriculture). Unfortunately my application got rejected. I may have confused the reviewer with lot of evidences (submitted in all 4 OCs). But the reviewer assessed only OC1&OC3( I got confused and selected them). Please provide your suggestions if I should appeal and request them to assess oc2& oc4. Kindly help @pahuja @Francisca_Chiedu
Hi @Sagarika_Roy sorry about the outcome! It’s not fair and not possible to comment on appeals without reviewing the application and the actual feedback itself as the success of the appeal depends purely on the original application quality and content.
@pahuja @Francisca_Chiedu @Akash_Joshi Can I request them to assess me in oc2 and OC4 during appeal
( initially i selected oc1& OC3). I believe my evidences are strong in oc2&4 and its already submitted with the application
It is possible! I have supported someone in a related circumstance. However, the person met MC and appealed for review on the OCs,
By God’s mercy the person was endorsed.
It is based on one’s situation and the strength of the overall evidence.
Thanks Raphael for suggestions.
MC1: developed a product, creating new revenue ( based on Big data and ML, Geospatial tech, coding) for my company ( Reinsurance MNC), recognised for internal Award ( individual contributor).
MC2 : developed agri-tech product (This product used ML, Ai, Coding) it’s commercialised( CM1 revenue growth), recognised with internal award.
However the assessor gave feedback saying it’s lack Innovation. I believe that It’s important to explain my assessor about the Geospatial technology & remote sensing technology also part of digital technology during my appeal @Raphael
From what you mentioned earlier, it seems that none of this met MC, correct?
Regardless of the feedback received, I believe submitting an appeal could be a valuable step either to re-present your case or to gain additional feedback that may help improve your application should you choose to re-apply.
@Raphael, can i defend my case during appeal? Do you think it will make any difference? Let me know what exactly tech nation look into MC criteria? Patent? Is internal innovation and recognition can be considered? Some of my mentoring & volunteering ( as instructor for UG students, volunteered in grassroot innovation) are more than 5 years old- can those evidences be considered? I have all of them submitted ( infact all OCs are filled, not sure which one got more impact). I can point them out during my appeal
You can try but it’s upto them if they will review in different criteria than selected
Hi @Sagarika_Roy, let me try and answer your questions:
can i defend my case during appeal?
Yes! You can re-present your case for review, but kindly note that you can not submit additional evidence outside what you submitted in the original application.
Do you think it will make any difference?
Regardless of what the outcome will be, you have nothing to lose - either they reconsider and endorse you, or they give additional feedback that might be of help in case you decide to re-apply.
Let me know what exactly tech nation look into MC criteria?
You can find the examples of relevant evidence on the major source of truth (TN Guidance) As stated, these are examples and not exhaustive, so any MC evidence should demonstrate that one has been recognized as (or recognized as having the potential to be) a leading talent in the digital technology sector in the last 5 years.
Is internal innovation and recognition can be considered?
Recognition and acceptance of evidence is subjective and no one can say for sure which evidence will be considered. Though some evidence are strong in terms of innovation, contribution, impact, and external validation by reputable sources, TN decides which meets the criteria per time, as the guidance as well gets updated regularly.
Some of my mentoring & volunteering (as instructor for UG students, volunteered in grassroots innovation) are more than 5 years old — can those evidences be considered?
Kindly note that all activity you are providing as evidence should have occurred within the past 5 years. Any evidence made solely to support the timing of your application is unacceptable. Evidence should demonstrate a consistent level of activity over time.
Hope these answer your questions.
Thanks @Raphael for detailed suggestions. The list provided in TN guide is purely IT based. I have technical background in Geospatial technology (I leverage AIML models), Big data ( Geospatial data science) to derive solutions focussing on Climate & Nature Risk , natural catastrophe ( flood, saline intrusion, extreme weather events) and contribution to digital field ( deployment in proprietary fee based platform, generated revenue. I guess the assessor checked my credentials towards " Research" than digital technology. How can I convince that my research or models or concepts are towards climate based digital technology. Can I convince them during appeal?
Even though I reapply, assessor will reject me again @Francisca_Chiedu @pahuja
You don’t need to “convince” you need to provide convincing and accurate context of your job and how it’s related to digital technology.
Your application is rejected anyway for now, even if the appeal is rejected you will get more feedback that will be useful if you wish to reapply and ofcourse there’s always a chance of appeal success. It’s upto you whether you want to take the chance.
Rightly said @pahuja , I see where i lacked. I have all the relevant evidences but unstructured. For appeal, I will give details explanation about Geospatial data science, building models, forecasting catastrophe enents(big data, AiMl based) revenue creation. The feedback received was like " received Awards, however no innovation". turning this feedback is bit challenging.
Like @Raphael and I have highlighted earlier: dont get hung up on turning the feedback in appeal. There is no downside to appealing hence give your best. You cant land in a worse position than now. You can only receive more feedback.
If you think you have enough great evidences that meet the guidelines, work on a new application → incorporate all feedback → give better structure and wholness to this one.
You mentioned that the TN guide list is purely IT based.
For context, there are also non-IT roles considered:
- Technical applicants (e.g. programmers) from non-technical organisations are eligible.
- Non-technical applicants (e.g. business roles) from technical organisations are eligible.
In both cases, the key requirement is to show recognition (or potential) as a leading talent in the digital technology sector within the last 5 years.
How can I convince that my research or models or concepts are towards climate based digital technology. Can I convince them during appeal?
As regards appealing for your research, models, or concepts as climate-based digital technology evidence, that is possible, but it really depends on how your evidence was initially structured. Also, it would be difficult to advise effectively without reviewing the Proforma.
Attached my Performa.
LOR-1 ( Director of current company ( mentioned innovations and revenue),
LOR-2 Professor( external funded project collaboration),
LOR-3 PhD advisor.
MC1- innovation solution & model, new concept- Hasthi Award ( individual contributor)- award screenshots with captions, certificate.
MC2- commercialised new remotesensing tech based product- team contribution, screenshots of newsletter( my name mentioned, received monetory payment) - Asia Elephant Award.
MC3- won external funding for my project from the Government ( DST India same as UKRI)( climate, water & nature modeling, forecasting catastrophe events etc using bigdata, geospatial, satellite data/ remote sensing)
OCs- tech based panel jury ( 100+ audience, 2025), Journal Reviewer ( Springer/ ACSE/Elsevier, 2022), freelancing/ adhoc mentor & collaboration ( 2022,2023- journal publications evidence outside work), mentoring students( till 2019), PhD, publication, conference, volunteering, book writing( 2017), NASA internship ( highly compititive) 2009. - All of the evidences are uploaded in the portal.
Thanks for sharing! The feedback looks quite self-explanatory for you to validate against your original application along with the guidelines.
They do say that OC3 evidence will be valid for OC4 but also go on to say that the application will fail even then. It is not just the OCs that are an issue but also LORs and MC. Considering this, only appealing requesting them to consider OC1 and OC3 as OC2 and OC4 will not work unless you are also able to demonstrate their feedback for LORs and MC.
My LORs are digital signed, scanned and shared ( not DocuSign). In LORs, recommenders mentioned how I can contribute to UK climate Tech, catastrophe modeling, geospatial technology. I will be providing validation and answers for the feedback for LORs during appeal
I agree that OCs are assigned to different evidences. Which I will request to reconsider.
Only concern is the interpretation of MCs. I need to explain my technical research leadership and product development ( deployed in company proprietary (fee based) portal mentioned in LOR, and screenshots email) is at par with digital technology and request for a review MCs. ( In any case if I reapply, i will be using those evidences for MCs)
Good luck for your appeal!
I read through the thread. I think submitting an appeal is a valuable step in gaining more information on your application.
Based on your description, asking them to reconsider your evidences under a different criteria might work - but I’m doubtful of that given they don’t allow changing your application as a part of the appeal.
The only thing they can do is recheck any parts of your evidences they might’ve obviously missed. But, I do hope you get something useful out of your appeal.