Request for Appeal Review - Exceptional Promise (Digital Technology)

Stage 1
1

Hi everyone,

I’m looking for some feedback and insights on my appeal strategy. I recently received a rejection for the Exceptional Talent (Digital Technology) route and have drafted my appeal based on correcting what I believe are factual misinterpretations of my evidence.

I previously shared my proposed evidence set here before submission and incorporated much of the advice received. Below is a summary of my application, followed by the key rejection points and my appeal strategy. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Summary of My Application Evidence:

Letters of Recommendation

  • LoR #1: Former senior divisional leader at Sony Europe (14+ years, pan-European product leadership)
  • LoR #2: Accelerator director (Soonami) - founder-focused, execution and technical validation
  • LoR #3: Startup founder / technical collaborator confirming my independent innovation work.

Mandatory Criterion - Recognition / Potential Leadership

  • Invited speaking engagements (1 international conference + 1 community tech event)
  • Open-source contribution to Linux Foundation Hyperledger Climate Action SIG
  • Selection into Soonami accelerator, supported by director’s letter explaining why I was selected and post-selection outcomes

Optional Criterion 1 - Innovation

  • kikAI (Sony Europe): AI-based computer-vision test automation system, created from scratch and adopted across 22 European regions
  • SavrAI: AI-powered fashion purchase guidance product (live, organic users, early payments)
  • Jornee: NLP-based emotion and unmet-needs detection system (confirmed by founder letter)

Optional Criterion 3 - Significant Contribution

  • Sony TV Channel Editor app: QA / Release Lead role, 100k+ downloads, zero critical post-launch issues
  • kikAI impact: Major reduction in test cycles and operational cost (confirmed by Sony leadership)
  • SavrAI traction: Early commercial and user impact

Here are the reasons for the rejection:

The applicant has applied for the Exceptional Promise route and has selected optional criteria (OC) OC1 and OC3.

The applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to qualify for any of the criteria selected and therefore we cannot endorse this application.

There were strong indications that elements of this application were written using AI tools. This goes against the visa guidance and impacts on the credibility of the application.

The applicant has also provided excerpts of reference letters that were not included in the application. Links were provided, but adding additional evidence in this way is not acceptable and has not been viewed.

The applicant’s reference letters are very supportive of the applicant and their abilities.

For the mandatory criterion, the applicant has presented speaking engagements, Hyperledger contribution and Soonami accelerator selection. The applicant’s speaking engagements are noted, but are not considered high profile events for the purposes of this visa route. The applicant’s Hyperledger open source work is also noted, but it is not considered a significant enough contribution in terms of the overall project and therefore does not materially contribute to this criterion. The applicant’s selection for the Soonami accelerator and work on SavrAI are also acknowledged, but this does not confer a level of recognition that meets this criterion.

For OC1, the applicant has submitted kikAI work (Sony), Jornee work and SavrAI work. Although it was developed with some skill, it was not shown how the work on Journee was innovative or how the product has market traction. Likewise, whilst SavrAI is operational and has users, it does not yet have market traction to a level that meets this criterion. The Sony work is a better example and has
been used across a number of locations, but overall there is not a sufficient amount of evidence to demonstrate a level of innovation required for this criterion.

For OC3, the applicant has presented SavrAI work, kikAI work and Sony app work. The applicant’s work on SavrAI is acknowledged, but it is not yet at a level of scale or traction that constitutes a significant contribution to the field. The applicant’s work on the Sony app looks to be part of their role and is also work as part of a larger team that are responsible for the app, rather than the app’s usage being as a result of only the applicant’s direct work. The contribution to the kikAI project is acknowledged, but it was not shown to be a significant contribution to the field of digital technology.

I have added my appeal in the comments, I would appreciate your help and review a lot!!

Thanks in advance!

2

1. On My Overall application (Rejection: AI-Written Content Accusation)

  • Rejection statement: “There were strong indications that elements of this application were written using AI tools. This goes against the visa guidance and impacts on the credibility of the application.”
  • My appeal:
    The panel’s claim that parts of my application were AI-generated is unsubstantiated. There is no Tech Nation rule prohibiting drafting tools if the content is truthful and fully supported. My evidence is independently verified and factual, and the rejection offers no specific examples. Without clear reasoning, this point is procedurally weak.

2. On my overall application (Rejection: Disregarded External Links for Additional Reference Letters):

  • Rejection statement: “The applicant has also provided excerpts of reference letters that were not included in the application. Links were provided, but adding additional evidence in this way is not acceptable and
    has not been viewed.”

  • My appeal:
    I included external reference letters as verifiable links, which Tech Nation does not prohibit. These links were not additional evidence but corroboration of submitted claims. Ignoring them on procedural grounds is inconsistent with the guidance and unfairly dismisses valid evidence of my recognized contributions.

3. On the Mandatory Criterion (Rejection: Insignificant recognition and open source contribution)

  • Rejection statements:
    “Speaking engagements are not considered high profile events.”
    “Hyperledger contribution is not considered significant enough.”
    “Accelerator selection does not confer a level of recognition that meets this criterion.”

  • My appeal:

  • The assessment applies a higher bar meant for Exceptional Talent, not Exceptional Promise. My speaking engagements, open-source contributions, and accelerator acceptance are valid forms of recognition for someone at an early career stage. The decision misunderstands the criteria for Promise and sets an inappropriately high threshold.

  • The panel’s reasoning about high-profile engagement is based on an undisclosed threshold for mandatory criterion. I provided evidence that my conference sessions had over 500 attendees and the entire conference had 3,500+ attendees, including major tech companies. There is no specific Tech Nation rule that defines a numeric threshold for what qualifies as high profile under the mandatory criterion (although >100 is mentioned for Optional Criteria). Unless Tech Nation explicitly discloses a different standard, rejecting my evidence on this basis is both unfair and non-transparent.

5. OC1 - Innovation: (Rejection: Insufficient innovation)

  • Rejection statement: “Although developed with some skill, there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate the level of innovation required.”

  • My appeal:
    The panel’s conclusion that my work wasn’t innovative or significant enough overlooks the evidence provided.

  • I detailed how kikAI introduced a completely new AI-driven testing capability within Sony, and this was validated by senior leadership.
  • For Jornee, I provided evidence of original NLP modeling and unique emotional taxonomies explicitly mentioning how it did not previously exist in the product or market segment and goes beyond standard NLP emotion classification., which the founder confirmed.
  • The panel’s feedback conflated market traction with innovation. OC1 is about demonstrating innovation, and I clearly explained how SavrAI introduces a novel AI-driven approach to fashion recommendations. I included evidence of the product’s innovative technical design and unique features. While I also referenced early traction to reinforce the product’s novelty, there’s no rule stating that a specific level of traction is required to prove innovation under OC1. Imposing a new traction threshold that isn’t part of the official guidance is unfair and inconsistent.

These contributions are clearly documented and recognized as innovative within their contexts verified by references, and Tech Nation does not define a specific market scale requirement for innovation for Exceptional Promise. Rejecting them on vague grounds is not consistent with the guidance and the panel’s reasoning sets a subjective bar that isn’t in the official criteria.

6. OC3 - Significant Contribution (Rejection: Employment Context and Team Involvement, Insufficient contribution):

  • Rejection statement: “The applicant’s work at Sony was part of their role and a larger team that are responsible for the app.” Insignificant contribution to kikAI, Sony app work, and SavrAI traction.

  • My appeal:

  • The panel discounted my contributions because they were part of my employment or a team effort. However, Tech Nation’s criteria specifically allow significant technical contributions made as an employee. My evidence showed that I led the design and implementation of key systems and was individually recognized for my role. Dismissing my impact simply because it occurred in a professional setting or a team environment contradicts the stated criteria.

  • The panel noted that SavrAI’s traction wasn’t enough, but there is no specific threshold in the guidance that defines what level of traction is required for Exceptional Promise. I provided evidence of real users, organic growth, and third-party validation from an accelerator’s director.
    Rejecting this without a clear standard is unfair.

3

@Pranamika_Pandey Please can you read this From Second Rejection to Endorsement: Why Strategy Matters in a Review

You are not approaching your appeal in the right way.

Even though there are genuine issues raised. I think you have potential for endorsement through appeal because the assessors also noted, acknowledged some of your work, skills across MC, OC1 and OC3, but your approach and misinterpretation of the guidance will do more harm than good.

My simple appeal strategies that have worked for countless rejected applications and this is one of those, just few weeks ago From Second Rejection to Endorsement: Why Strategy Matters in a Review

  • Carefully study the rejection feedback
  • Identify the exact oversight or misinterpretation
  • Respond strategically and respectfully, point by point
  • Clearly explain how the criteria were actually met, without arguing or sounding confrontational

All the best.

1 Like
4

Hi @Pranamika_Pandey sorry about the outcome!

Firstly, there was a lot of feedback given by myself and other experts on your outline - it’s nearly impossible and inaccurate to give any feedback on appeal strategy without seeing the application quality and content itself and how the feedback was incorporated as I can see a lot of gaps highlighted previously. Appeal success is solely dependent on application content and not just high level outline listed here.

Secondly, some of your facts in above appeal are inaccurate eg. TN does explicitly prohibit usage of AI in application, innovation indeed needs market traction, etc - all these are part of guidelines. Be mindful of quoting such things as it reflects lack of understanding of guidelines.

Lastly, in my vast experience with appeals, an accusatory language absolutely almost never works. You will need to detach emotions and present facts for every point raised.

1 Like
5

Thanks Raphael, really appreciate your feedback!

6

Thanks @pahuja , I note all your comments and will try to modify my appeal based on that.

Regarding my evidence docs, please find the post here: Request to review Exceptional Talent evidences

Would it also help if I DM the full docs to you please?

Thanks so much, your insights or any strategy would be valuable :pray:

7

@Pranamika_Pandey I offer rejection review as a paid professional service - since it’s significantly more effort and strategy to go through the entire application and analyse basis the feedback. You can reach out on LinkedIn if you are looking for professional guidance: Priyanka Ahuja - topmate.io | LinkedIn

8

@pahuja @Akash_Joshi @Raphael @Francisca_Chiedu and other experts, please could you advise me on the appeal of below rejection statement:

Assessor’s comment: “There were strong indications that elements of this application were written using AI tools. This goes against the visa guidance and impacts on the credibility of the application.”

My appeal:
Version 1: I want to briefly address your comment about AI use. While preparing my application, I did what many people do today, searching online for examples and guidance from other people’s experiences to make sure I was presenting my work clearly. Some of the suggestions Google brought was through Gemini, that may have influenced my wording without me realizing. But every achievement, story, and description came directly from me, and all my evidence is verifiable. If the writing style created the wrong impression, I sincerely apologise.

Version 2: I wanted to briefly address your comment. I take your AI concern seriously. My application reflects my genuine achievements and credibility, supported by verifiable evidence from letter of recommendations, screenshots, emails, user metrics, etc. I respectfully ask you to review this evidence directly to see my authentic track record and contributions.

Or, should I not rebuttal this point?

Thanks so much in advance!

9

Finally, this is my appeal strategy to the criteria’s rejection:

Rejection reason:
“MC criteria: For the mandatory criterion, the applicant has presented speaking engagements, Hyperledger contribution, and Soonami accelerator selection. The applicant’s speaking engagements are noted, but are not considered high-profile events for the purposes of this visa route. The applicant’s Hyperledger open source work is also noted, but it is not considered a significant enough contribution in terms of the overall project and therefore does not materially contribute to this criterion. The applicant’s selection for the Soonami accelerator and work on SavrAI are also acknowledged, but this does not confer a level of recognition that meets this criterion.”

My appeal:
Speaking engagement: I appreciate they noted my speaking engagements. However, the conference had 3,500+ attendees from recognised companies like Nvidia and Google (evidence 1 - Page 1 & 2), which is high-profile by scale and number of participants. The email clearly shows I was invited based on merit and this shows I passed their competitive selection criteria, demonstrating recognition as having the potential to be a leading talent. This directly meets MC criteria.

Open source work: I appreciate they noted my Hyperledger open source work. For Hyperledger (evidence 2 - MC2), my contribution was significant within a major climate-tech project recognised by IBM Call for Code ( just a year following my work), with participants from recognised institutions like Fujitsu and Yale Open Innovation Lab. I made 44 peer-reviewed PRs to build the CI/CD pipeline and manual test automation, saving over 1,000 hours of developer work, with recognition of my contribution by project maintainers and peers (evidence 2- page 3). These clearly meets the level of recognition and technical contribution expected of an emerging leader under Exceptional Promise.

For Soonami/SavrAI (Evidence 3 - Page 1 & 2), I was selected as 1 of 11 teams out of 300 for Demo Day based on traction, execution speed, and standing in digital tech which shows a direct proof of recognition. Soonami directors (established industry leaders) explicitly recognised my work and leadership in their LOR (Evidence 3 - Page 2), showing industry validation for an emerging leader under Exceptional Promise.

Rejection reason:For OC1, the applicant has submitted kikAI work (Sony), Jornee work and SavrAI work. Although it was developed with some skill, it was not shown how the work on Journee was innovative or how the product has market traction. Likewise, whilst SavrAI is operational and has users, it does not yet have market traction to a level that meets this criterion. The Sony work is a better example and has been used across a number of locations, but overall there is not a sufficient amount of evidence to demonstrate a level of innovation required for this criterion.

Appeal:
Sony (kikAI): OC1 requires “innovation as founder/employee in product-led digital tech”, it does not define specific “levels” of innovation or traction. I designed Sony’s first AI-driven automation tool with screen understanding capability that didn’t exist before, now in standard release process across 22 EU regions since 2022, cutting verification time from 30 days->3 days, saving 200+ hours/month and saving approx. £300k/year to Sony which was acknowledged by David in his recommendation letter and explained in evidence 4. This clearly demonstrates the innovation and traction that shows I’m promising and have the potential to be a leading talent.

SavrAI: OC1 requires “innovation as founder/employee in product-led digital tech”, it does not specify traction thresholds. I built a proprietary NLP engine and cost-per-wear module creating personalised fit/quality predictions from raw product data, a capability that didn’t exist in fashion-ecommerce (Evidence 6 - page 1 & 2 architecture/code). It’s live with 500+ organic users, returning engagement, Stripe revenue displayed through GA4/payment screenshots in evidence 6 - page 2 & 3, which is genuine market traction for Promise category.

Rejection reason: For OC3, the applicant has presented SavrAI work, kikAI work and Sony app work. The applicant’s work on SavrAI is acknowledged, but it is not yet at a level of scale or traction that constitutes a significant contribution to the field. The applicant’s work on the Sony app looks to be part of their role and is also work as part of a larger team that are responsible for the app, rather than the app’s usage being as a result of only the applicant’s direct work. The contribution to the kikAI project is acknowledged, but it was not shown to be a significant contribution to the field of digital technology.

Appeal:
SavrAI: OC3 requires “significant commercial/entrepreneurial contributions as founder”, it does not require later-stage scale. As sole founder, I drove 500+ organic users, out of which 97 were returning (~20%), 800+ user searches on my platform, and Stripe revenue without paid marketing shown via GA4/payment screenshots (evidence 7- page 1 & 2) demonstrating a natural market pull and significant contribution for early-stage digital tech, which I believe meets Exceptional Promise.

Sony app work: OC3 includes “employee contributions” as clearly stated under the criteria, and it requires showing my personal contribution to the company’s products which I did (in evidence 9). The assessor themself said and I quote “my work as part of a larger team”. As lead verification engineer, I created, standardized and led execution of the verification process myself enabling 80k+ users with app launched across Play Store & App Store (Evidence 9, Pages 1-2, LOR from David Williams).

Sony (kikAI): OC3 requires “technical contributions as employee”, it does not require changing “the field of digital technology” broadly. The assessor acknowledged my kikAI work but overlooked that as a lead, I established requirements delivery across 10+ teams, personally delivering high-priority automation towards BRAVIA TVs’s customer side issue (Netherlands “No Signal” issue) reducing detection time from 4 weeks → 2-3 days, saving 100+ engineer hours/month (evidence 8 - Page 1-3).

Conclusion: The Promise route as per guidelines is for applicants who demonstrate clear potential to become leading talent in digital technology. Based on my trajectory, experiences, and the evidence I have provided across all criteria, I believe I meet this expectation.

I apologise for the long message. But keen to hear everyone’s feedback :pray:

10

The question now is did you use AI? If you did, and there are indications that you clearly did, then you may want to address this strategically. But if you did not, clearly tell them you did not.

Rebuttal, to challenge or disagree with a claim or opinion. Yes, if you did not use AI and there are no traces of it, you should state that clearly. @Pranamika_Pandey People who assess GTV applicants are smart tech professionals, so you need to be careful.

People naturally resist claims that make them look foolish or question their competence. It’s a normal psychological response tied to ego protection and we all do it.

All the best.