Request for Review: Exceptional Promise - Technical CoFounder and BE

Stage 1: Tech Nation Endorsement
1

Hi all, I am Technical Co-Founder of a Music Tech Platform and worked as Backend Engineer for 5+ years and I am looking to use these experiences to apply for the Exceptional Promise. Here are my evidences setup, lemme know what you think (thank you).

Letter of Recommendation
Head of Engineering at Two different banks I have worked (2022, 2024)
Senior Exec at Virgin Music Group (cos of my startup is Tech and Music)

For MC1:
p1. TechCabal Article from 2021 and 2023, talking about myself and co-founder and the startup. The initial was talking about the idea and our roles, the later talking about the algorithm and intricacies of the startup (looking at screenshots of those parts).
p2. Recognition article as one of the Top Music Tech Founder in the country (new article)
p3. Industry adoption of the startup (Burna Boy certification post, Empire Music new article using the data for expansion purpose, Nation newspaper referencing the startup work)

For OC1: Evidence of innovation
p1. Startup - problem, solution, technical diagram of how the solution is, role with screenshot of the technical setup on our Cloud Services.
p2. Commercial Traction, Product growth - social metrics (screenshots), revenue (bank statements), news articles evidence
p3. Ecosystem validation - industry partners (new articles evidence), data partners like audiomack, boomplay, spotify, etc (announcements on socials and new articles)

For OC3: Significant Contribution
p1. Technical Project working as Backend led at 2 Nigerian Banks (technical note on problem, solution, role and metrics). Bank A was in 2023, Bank B was in 2024. One of the project has like two different news articles to support that the problem existed and also that the solution exist. The other project has an article on announcement of the project.
p2. Letter from Technical Lead from Bank A to verify my participation in said projects, including the metrics to support the impact.
p3. Letter from Technical Lead from Bank B to verify participation, included with metrics to support the impact.

Questions:
What do you think of the evidences for each criteria?
Are the evidences enough especially since i am pushing two perspectives with the startup, one as a recognised leader and two as something innovative in MC1 and OC1?
What could make this application weaker or make the reviewer question the application.

Thanks in Advance.

2

MC1 is where I’d focus first. Assessors draw a firm line between coverage of a startup or founder profile and independent recognition of you personally as an emerging sector leader. As it stands, every piece here attaches to the company rather than to you. The press coverage profiles the venture, the founder recognition piece is a profile, and the adoption evidence recognises what the platform achieved. A useful test for each is whether it would still stand as recognition of you if the company vanished tomorrow. If the answer is no, it reads as evidence for the startup, not for you.

Running the startup as both recognised leader and innovation is fine in principle, but two things bite. You cannot use the same document for two criteria, and the news articles currently sit under both MC1 and OC1, so those need to be distinct. OC1 rests on innovation proven through revenue, and social metric or cloud setup screenshots count as self-documentation, which assessors discount. The Guide wants formal accounts or audited revenue over 12 months.

OC3 does the most work for you: impact rather than innovation, backed by employer letters with metrics. The thing to pressure-test is whether the two banks read as product-led digital technology companies, since OC3 requires the contribution to sit inside one. If they are traditional banks rather than fintech products, frame each project around the digital product you built and its impact.

If I had to rank the risk, MC1 is the section most likely to sink this, so fix that first.

3

Thank you for your reply.

4

@Similoluwa_Adegoke Trust you are good.

First, on your narrative, you have over five years of experience, yet you are applying through the Promise route. What is your justification? You need to clearly explain your reasons to Tech Nation. This could be due to a career gap or because your initial roles were not in core tech mainstream positions.

For MC: Your TechCal article about yourself and your co-founder may be dismissed as promotional, as it does not show recognition for what you have done. What do you mean by a recognition article? An article about you being a music founder? This may also be dismissed as self-authored, partnership or huge funding you got for what you founded or if the article were validating a national or international award you received. Regarding your industry adoption post, it’s important to note that the music industry is not the same as the tech industry. You are using technology for your music startup, but you need to clearly show how your music platform is a tech platform. Your discipline as a Backend Engineer still makes you eligible, but when it comes to meeting the evidence requirements, this may be flagged.

For OC1: You need to clearly show your innovation in this area or present a new concept. Your problem, solution, and technical diagram will not demonstrate innovation. Commercials can help, but they only validate that you made money from what you innovated. You need to first show the innovation, then validate it with a patent or, in your case, commercial metrics. Your P3 under OC1 is descriptive, what kind of partnership did you have with Audiomack, Boomplay, Spotify? This can validate innovation if you can show ownership, direct involvement, and that your name or your company was mentioned. Even then, innovation is the primary evidence that must be shown.

For OC3: It’s important to note that banks are not product-led companies. They use technology to enable financial services, and OC3 requires work done in a product-led company. Also, technical notes on problem, solution, role, and metrics will not show your technical contribution as a backend engineer. Can you show code, architectural diagrams, technical collaboration evidence, version control, or official internal correspondences? Was your name mentioned in the articles? Most likely not. A bank will not publicly mention the name of their problem solver. The article will not validate this. Letters can help only when the evidence already aligns, then they can validate the evidence. For Letter B, having two letters in one criterion is not strategic.

On your question:

What do you think of the evidence for each criterion?

You may have issues with evidence not aligning correctly and company not being product-led, especially for OC3.

Are the evidences enough, especially since you are pushing two perspectives with the startup - one as a recognised leader and two as something innovative in MC1 and OC1?

To be honest, based on what you listed, your evidence is weak.

What could make this application weaker or make the reviewer question the application?

Your narrative, the OC3 company not a product-led, and the evidence being weak.

I would suggest you take some time to improve, strengthen, or work on evidence that will increase your chances of endorsement.

All the best.

5

Your structure has some good elements, but the key will be clear separation and personal attribution.

For MC, the media recognition can work if the articles genuinely recognise you as a founder/leader, rather than simply promoting the startup. The newer “Top Music Tech Founder” recognition could be particularly useful. Industry adoption is also helpful, but make sure your personal role and contribution are clearly evidenced.

For OC1, using the same startup is possible, but avoid repeating the MC evidence. Keep MC focused on external recognition, while OC1 should focus on what is technically innovative, your role in creating it, and evidence of market/product validation. Partner announcements and independent articles would strengthen this.

For OC3, the bank projects could be strong if the metrics are significant and your individual contribution is clearly separated from the wider team. The bank projects could, therefore, be strong evidence if the supporting documents clearly connect your specific technical decisions and responsibilities to the reported outcomes. The metrics should ideally be independently verifiable rather than relying only on internal confirmation. The supporting letters are useful, but avoid making two evidence documents primarily dependent on internal letters. Include objective supporting evidence where possible.

The main risks I see are overlap between MC and OC1, relying too heavily on startup publicity rather than personal recognition, and insufficient independent evidence linking you directly to the claimed impact. Your recommendation letters look reasonably well positioned, provided they meet the required format and can speak in detail about your work.

Overall, the structure is workable, but I would suggest you focus on making each criterion tell a different story with clear personal attribution and third-party validation.