Hi Forum,
After patiently waiting, I received the disappointing news that my endorsement was rejected as the assessor pointed out that I only met 1 out of the 3 criteria. However, I strongly believe that my application showcased my qualifications adequately, and thus, I am applying for a review of my application.
MC Rejection
Regarding the mandatory criteria, the assessor mentioned that the endorsement letter did not provide sufficient insight into my impact, and the public speaking evidence did not meet the criteria as it was a Twitter space. However, I would like to emphasize in my appeal that: the Letters of Recommendation (LoRs) offer valuable insights into my achievements, and the evidence provided for the public speaking clips clearly demonstrated my participation in both physical and Twitter space events. In fact, the physical event where I spoke had an audience of up to 24,000 attendees, as explicitly stated in the evidence. Additionally, the companies I have worked for operate in emerging markets, specifically in the fields of blockchain and artificial intelligence. Notably, in the release of XXX second edition, which I actively contributed to, the project received a substantial grant of $2.5 million for innovation. Moreover, YYY company successfully launched a production-ready SaaS application, which signifies significant growth for both companies as stated in the LoR.
OC1:
This case is somewhat tricky since the document I presented(Evident 6) was mistakenly pointed out for OC1 (my mistake), However, the assessor referred to it in the OC2 review.
I want to appeal that Evidence 6 clearly showcases my contribution to an innovative product, where I implemented speech recognition using Ruby which meet the criteria for OC1.
I kindly request urgent feedback and a reconsideration of my appeal. Your time and attention to this matter are greatly appreciated. @Francisca_Chiedu@Afolabi
@Francisca_Chiedu
LoRs
Blockchain Contributions Report
Speaker’s Portfolio in the Digital Technology Sector: Detailed on the event I spoke on, the impact and clippings.
Salary and Remuneration Portfolio: Detailed of Salary and Employment contract
Github Contributions Report: Showing active contribution
Blockchain Contributions Report Open Source Software Contributor to RChain: For open source contribution.
Key Engineering Contributions Report to a Startup’s Success: Shows detail of my work in working in an innovative company.
Hi @Francisca_Chiedu, my apologies for not clarifying that earlier.
MC:
LoRs
Blockchain Contributions Report
Speaker’s Portfolio in the Digital Technology Sector: Detailed on the event I spoke on, the impact and clippings.
OC1
Salary and Remuneration Portfolio: Detailed of Salary and Employment contract
Github Contributions Report: Showing active contribution
OC2
Blockchain Contributions Report Open Source Software Contributor to RChain: For open source contribution.
Key Engineering Contributions Report to a Startup’s Success: Shows detail of my work in working in an innovative company.
Just as I started earlier: “Key Engineering Contributions Report to a Startup’s Success”
was suppose to be in place of OC1.
I think you didn’t submit sufficient evidence and looks like you repeated some evidence. The updated guide says you should have 2 unique evidence for each of the criteria. Was the conference a twitter Space or actual conference?
I am not sure what Blockchain contribution suggests you have been recognised as a leader. Was this report made by a third party or self-authored?
The speaking event, how many people attended the conference, did you show a picture of you speaking on the main stage of the conference. The quality of the event and clipping matter. Did you get a reference letter from the organiser, programme of event.
For OC1 are you a founder, senior executive or an employee of the company. If you are an employee you need to show it’s a new digital field.
Thanks for your feedback, @Francisca_Chiedu.
Yes, the report was self-authored but contains screenshots of repo contributions.
I applied under the Promise category, and the two reports are unique in the sense that both show contributions to different projects. However, the rejection was based on LoR, which provided no insights, and the speech.
Also, the speaking event occurred in two phases: A pre-Twitter space and a physical event with 5000 attendees. I presented clippings of both clips. Regretfully, I did not get a reference letter from the organizer.
For the OC1, it’s an artificial intelligence company; does this qualify as a “new digital field”?
Also, do you think the appeal may hold ground, and if not, do I start a fresh application?
Your OC1 is very weak.
Salary and GitHub isn’t strong evidence for OC1. They want to see innovation, Proof of product in market, The Value of your product and If possible some level of business ownership for founders.
@Francisca_Chiedu No, the clipping that included my face was the flyer for Twitter space- the other clips showed the audience. Moving forward, is it advisable to start a new application pending when you get the decision for the review?
