Request for Evidence Review – AI / Digital Technology (Exceptional Promise)

Stage 1: Tech Nation Endorsement
1

Hi everyone, thank you for creating this space.

I’m preparing to apply for the UK Global Talent endorsement in Digital Technology under the Exceptional Promise route, and I would really appreciate an independent and honest review of my proposed evidence portfolio.

My background is originally in HR and workplace digital transformation, and over the past few years I have transitioned into AI product development, workforce intelligence and responsible AI adoption.

I’m trying to ensure that my evidence is correctly positioned across Mandatory Criteria, OC1 (Innovation), and OC2 (Contribution to the Digital Technology Ecosystem).

Mandatory Criteria / Recognition

1. External recognition and professional standing

  • Selected for an international Women in AI fellowship in 2026.

  • Volunteer contributor to a US-based Responsible EdTech Task Force.

  • Recently interviewed by Guardian Nigeria about AI, the future of work, careers and workforce transformation.

  • Invited as a panelist at AgentCon Lagos, speaking about the responsible use of AI agents in workplace transformation.

  • Invited to speak to 100+ participants at a national employers’ organisation on AI in HR, AI-enabled workflows and practical AI adoption. I also created an AI assessment for participants, which is referenced in my supporting letter. Participants are business & HR Leaders more than 100.

  • Invited to speak at the IndabaX Nigeria conference, where I taught no-code and AI-powered product development. Participants built products live during the session, and I have online evidence of some of the outputs being shared while the session was taking place.

Evidence: Invitations, appreciation/letters of support, event programmes, photographs, recordings and other supporting documentation.

OC1 – Innovation

1. HR technology platform – Co-founder & COO

  • Co-founded and currently serve as COO of an HR technology platform focused on workplace transparency and trust.

  • Early business adoption and customer use cases.

  • Featured in TechCabal.

  • Nominated for a startup award this year.

  • Customer testimonials and supporting product/adoption evidence.

  • Copyright Certificate of the innovation

2. AI-powered EdTech platform

  • Built an AI-powered EdTech/workforce intelligence platform that helps users identify emerging and AI-enabled career opportunities, skills gaps and relevant learning pathways.

  • Has 1,000+ users.

  • Selected to pitch through a Nigerian bank innovation/ideation programme.

3. AI health-tech product

  • Built an AI-powered health-tech product delivered through WhatsApp for accessible health education.

  • Invited to exhibit and pitch through an international programme/event supported by Microsoft.

Evidence: Product-development evidence, user evidence, testimonials, invitations, exhibition/pitch documentation, photographs, video recordings and supporting letters.

OC2 – Contribution to the Digital Technology Ecosystem

1. Research reviewing

  • Reviewer for research papers in digital technology/AI, including:

    • IndabaX Nigeria – Deep Learning

    • Deep Learning Indaba 2026

  • I have invitation/confirmation and evidence of the reviewing activities.

2. Technology/AI judging

  • Judge/evaluator for Women in AI Nigeria hackathon activities.

  • Judge/evaluator for other AI and technology hackathons/community programmes.

  • I have invitations, confirmations and supporting documentation.

3. Thought leadership / public contribution

  • Author of two books focused on AI for HR, covering the practical application and adoption of AI in the workplace.

  • Published an article in a recognised Nigerian national newspaper on responsible AI in HR and AI adoption.

  • I have the published article and supporting evidence of authorship/publication.

4. AI and digital skills ecosystem contribution

  • Convener of a recurring AI-focused initiative and summit for women, particularly supporting non-technical and experienced professionals to develop practical AI and digital skills.

  • The summit has also received media coverage from Guardian Woman.

  • I have event documentation, participation evidence and media coverage.

5. WomenTech Network

  • Joined WomenTech Network in 2022.

  • Global Ambassador and active volunteer within the community.

  • I have evidence of my activities and contributions.

  • Nominated for a WomenTech community/technology award last year and nominated again this year.

Recommendation Letters

My proposed recommenders are:

  1. Associate Professor in AI / Computer Science

  2. CTO / technology leader

  3. Technology founder

All have established backgrounds in digital technology and evidence of their professional standing and knowledge of my work.

What I would appreciate feedback on

I would particularly value your honest views on:

  1. Whether this evidence is coherent for Exceptional Promise.

  2. Whether the recognition evidence is sufficiently strong and independent.

  3. Whether the three early-stage products provide a convincing OC1 innovation/product-building case, despite not yet generating significant revenue.

  4. Whether my research reviewing, judging, speaking and community activities provide a convincing OC2 contribution case.

  5. Whether any evidence would be better positioned under MC, OC1 or OC2.

  6. Whether there is any unnecessary repetition or any obvious gap I should address before submitting.

I’m specifically looking for independent and critical feedback, including anything you think may be weak or should be strengthened.

Thank you

@Raphael @Akash_Joshi

2

The three products under OC1 are the part most likely to sink this. The Guide is explicit that a company used as innovation evidence must show income beyond covering the founder’s salary and be commercially successful, backed by formal accounts with a profit and loss statement and balance sheet. Pre-revenue products and user counts don’t clear that bar, and the copyright certificate carries almost no weight. If none of the three has real revenue and signed accounts, OC1 isn’t your criterion.

Your strongest independent recognition is sitting in the OC2 list. Reviewing for Deep Learning Indaba and IndabaX, and judging AI hackathons, maps onto the Mandatory example of holding a significant expert role assessing the work of others in the field. That is peer-level recognition inside digital technology, exactly what the Mandatory Criterion looks for. Much of the rest of the recognition list is pitched at HR and workforce audiences, which sit at the edge of the sector the assessors judge.

Run one test over each media piece: if the company or the summit vanished tomorrow, would the coverage still recognise you personally? The Guardian Woman piece profiles the initiative, and assessors treat coverage of a venture as separate from recognition of a person. The interview is closer to personal recognition, though its promotional framing weakens it.

OC2 is your most coherent criterion, so build the spine there and keep it clearly voluntary and separate from your COO role. Move the reviewing and judging up to anchor the Mandatory Criterion, and the cleanest structure is Mandatory plus OC2.

3

@Emmie Trust you are okay.

Let’s start with your narrative. Yes, transitioning from a non tech role into an eligible tech role is acceptable, in your case, HR into Tech. However, the role you described doesn’t sit in the core AI expert roles. To qualify, you need to position yourself clearly as an expert in Processing and Machine Learning (AI, NLP, ML).

What you described falls more under AI application areas:

I have transitioned into AI product development, workforce intelligence and responsible AI adoption.

So what you can do is look for an eligible role that aligns with where you’ve actually applied AI. From what you’ve stated, one can position him/her self as as an Experienced AI Product Manager and Product Manager is an eligible role.

Based on the role description you shared, you may get a not eligible feedback if you don’t reposition properly.

MC

Just being selected for an AI fellowship won’t meet the MC requirement. MC is about being recognised for doing something that advanced the sector, by peers or reputable organisations, within the last 5 years.

So the question is: What exactly were you selected for? What did you do?

For the volunteer contributor role, how did that advance the sector? Were you invited or selected because of your expertise?

A simple interview with a media house won’t meet MC. You need to show that the interview happened because of your expertise, and that it validates something meaningful you did in the sector not just you for knowledge sharing sake, that can work for OC2, it it meets other requirements for that criterion. Also, the context of media for MC is different:
It must be a published material in professional or major trade publications or major media, talking about your work not just being interviewed. Your AgentCon Lagos panelist invitation can be okay, but you need to clearly show that you were invited, evidence of you speaking on stage with at least 100 people and any post‑event impact will strengthen it. Tech Nation, I believe will also check the credibility of AgentCon.

You described your evidence and then added an overall evidence list, with this, you may not get very useful feedback from me. I need to know the actual evidence your are submitting to back up each description.

OC1

OC1 is about innovation, and yes, you can show innovation as a co‑founder. But what you listed doesn’t yet demonstrate innovation in the way Tech Nation expects.

A copyright certificate only shows ownership of creative work like writing, software code, designs. What OC1 requires is a patent for technical innovation that’s like a new method, process, system, or invention.

Saying AI‑powered EdTech/workforce is just a description. You need to evidence the innovation itself. Then validate it with the sales, adoption and other things you listed.

At this point, I won’t be able to give very useful feedback based only on the list you shared. I’ll need to see the actual evidence you intend to submit to give proper guidance.

All the best.

4

Thanks a lot for the detailed feedback. I really appreciate you taking the time to go through it. Your point about how I’m positioning the evidence is helpful.

Just to clarify a few things and get your thoughts:

1. Guardian interview:
The Guardian interview has nothing to do with any company or product I built. It is an editorial interview focused on my own expertise and views on AI, the future of work and careers. Would you still consider this weak for MC, or would you see it as personal recognition?

2. Speaking engagements:
I have three engagements I’m considering:

  • AI/product-building session: I taught participants how to use AI and no-code tools to build products live. I have the invitation, recording, and online posts from participants showing what they built during the session.
  • AI in HR session: I was invited specifically because of my expertise in AI in HR and my practical experience creating AI-based solutions. For the session, I used AI to create an AI-readiness assessment solution that participants used live to assess their level of AI readiness across different areas/departments of their organisations. This was specifically acknowledged in the letter of appreciation as making the presentation practical.
  • Tech conference panel: I was a panelist at a technology conference focused on AI governance and automation in the workplace, where I contributed to the discussion from my practical experience with AI.

Would you recommend using these speaking engagements? If yes, would you position them under MC or OC2?

3. OC4: (Thinking if I should consider it to replace OC2 due to your comment)
I also co-authored two articles published on international platforms one on AI in healthcare and another on AI in the workplace. Do you think these are worth considering under OC4?

Finally, regarding your concern about the lack of commercial revenue in my product evidence: since my products are still early-stage, would you advise that I completely drop OC1, or do you think there is another way to position the innovation evidence under the current Exceptional Promise criteria?

Thanks again. I’m trying to be very deliberate about not forcing evidence into a criterion where it doesn’t genuinely fit.

5

Thank you so much for taking the time to give such a detailed response. I really appreciate the honest feedback and practical tips. I’m trying to make sure I align my evidence with the criteria rather than force evidence into a category, so your comments are genuinely helpful.

I’ve already taken your advice on the positioning and changed my professional positioning from AI Product Builder to AI Product Manager to make my technology role clearer.

Just to clarify a few things and get your further thoughts:

  • AI in HR speaking engagement: I was invited because of my HR background and practical experience building AI products using no-code tools. For the session, I used AI to create an AI-readiness assessment solution, which participants used live to assess their organisations’ readiness for AI across different areas. This was specifically acknowledged in the appreciation/support letter. Would you see this as stronger for MC or OC2?
  • Technology conference: I also have a speaking engagement at a technology conference/summit supported by Microsoft, with an audience of 500+. I have the invitation, evidence of speaking on stage, recordings and supporting/appreciation evidence. Would this be useful for MC, particularly given the scale and credibility of the event?
  • OC1: For the HR-tech product, I have customer adoption and testimonials in addition to the copyright registration. I also believe there is a first-of-its-kind aspect in Africa, but I don’t want to make that claim unless I can substantiate it properly. If I can clearly evidence the innovation, would that change your view on OC1? And would pursuing appropriate patent/IP protection add meaningful value?
  • For the EdTech product it’s a SaaS Product, we applied to an innovation/ideation program, were selected to participate, and progressed to the pitching stage, although we did not receive funding. I’ll make sure this is presented accurately.
  • I’m also considering whether to drop OC1 and explore OC4 instead. I have co-authored two articles published on international platforms, one focused on AI in healthcare and another on AI/algorithms in the workplace. Would you consider this a cleaner route?
  • Women in AI Fellowship: I was selected for a one-year international fellowship that started in January 2026, and I am currently the only Nigerian fellow. As part of my application, I submitted evidence of the AI summit I founded for women and an AI health-tech product I built for girls’ menstrual-health education. These formed part of the basis for my selection. Would this additional context make the fellowship’s stronger recognition evidence for MC?
  • Responsible EdTech Task Force: I was selected for this opportunity through the fellowship, based on my AI/product-building background and the AI ED-tech solution I had developed and responsible AI skills. I have the selection/invitation evidence. Would you consider this useful for MC/OC2, or would you leave it out?

I also understand your point that a list of activities isn’t enough to properly assess the strength of the application. I do have the actual supporting evidence behind these claims, invitations, letters, recordings, publications, adoption evidence, testimonials, etc. I can share redacted examples if that would help.

Thanks again for the guidance. My main goal is to choose the criteria that genuinely fit my evidence.

6

OC4 is not a cleaner route than OC2. The Guide sets a specific bar for academic contributions: a paper in a top-tier peer-reviewed journal, a peer-reviewed conference presentation, or endorsement from a senior academic who supervised your research directly. Two co-authored articles will not clear that unless the platforms are genuinely peer-reviewed. Your reviewing and judging work is the stronger OC2 case.

Speaking engagements are weaker than they look. OC2 conference speaking needs a main-stage slot at a sector-leading event with at least 100 actual attendees, unpaid by your employer, and the Guide says running a session or workshop is not sufficient. The live no-code build session is a workshop by that definition. A main-stage talk at the Microsoft-supported summit can support OC2, though sessions pitched at HR audiences sit at the edge of the sector the assessors judge.

The Guardian interview is stronger if it is editorial about you rather than promotion. The catch for MC is that the media example asks for published material about your work in the sector, and commentary on the future of work sits closer to OC2 thought leadership. It supports the case but will not anchor MC alone. Same with the fellowship: selection is recognition, but on its own it does not evidence what you did to advance the field.

Dropping OC1 is the right call. Chasing a patent now works against you, since the Guide rejects evidence created solely to support the timing of an application, and only granted patents count.

7

Based on the evidence described, the Mandatory Criterion has several potentially relevant elements: the Women in AI fellowship, Guardian Nigeria coverage, invited speaking, AgentCon participation and the IndabaX engagement.
The strongest pieces will be those where an independent organisation selected you specifically because of your AI/digital expertise. Invitations alone should be supported by evidence of the actual contribution and, where possible, the standing/reach of the organisation or event.

OC1 has a reasonable innovation narrative. The three products demonstrate continued product development, but make sure the evidence clearly establishes what is genuinely innovative about each product and your personal role in developing that innovation; the absence of significant revenue is not necessarily fatal. For an early-stage Promise applicant, user adoption, external selection, customer validation, technical originality and evidence of your personal role can all be relevant. The strongest product evidence should clearly establish what you personally created, what was innovative about it, and what happened as a result. The three products should also demonstrate distinct innovations rather than substantially overlapping work.

OC2 is broad and potentially useful. Research reviewing, judging, speaking, mentoring/community activity and the WomenTech contribution can demonstrate contribution beyond your main employment, provided the evidence establishes that these were genuine invitations/roles and not simply membership or participation. The books and newspaper articles can support thought leadership, but the quality and external reach of the publication matter more than the number of publications.

I would avoid using the same speaking/judging activity to establish both mandatory recognition and OC2. Where the same underlying activity is relevant to more than one area, the evidence should still be mapped carefully because the current guidance does not allow the same piece of evidence to be used for more than one criterion.

Overall, there is a plausible Exceptional Promise case, with the main areas to scrutinize being the strength of independent recognition, the originality and individual attribution of the OC1 products, and whether the OC2 activities demonstrate meaningful contribution rather than participation. The recommendation letters should reinforce this narrative by explaining why established digital-technology experts consider you to have the potential to become a leader, rather than simply confirming your activities.