Request to review Exceptional Talent evidences

Stage 1
1

Hi all,
After receiving some initial feedback on my evidence earlier this year, I’m posting an updated list of my revised evidence. I have made substantial changes based on your earlier feedback (removing weak evidence, merging related items, adding third-party verification, clarifying innovation vs impact, etc.). Below is my final structure. Would appreciate any guidance before I submit.

Mandatory Criteria (MC)

MC1 – Speaking Recognition (International + UK)

Evidence combined:

  • Data Innovation Summit 2025 (Stockholm) — invitation email, agenda listing, badge/photos, event stats (3,500+ delegates, 1,500+ companies, attendees from 70+ countries).
  • GirlsWhoML London Featured Speaker — (I spoke about my experience and insights building startup) Luma event link, 53 attendees (majorly women), unsolicited attendee post praising my insights, before/after LinkedIn engagement.

How this meets MC1:
Shows a pattern of recognition (not a one-off), one high-profile international event + one UK community event with external validation.

MC2 – Prestigious Accelerator Selections

  • Soonami Accelerator — acceptance email, “Top Team” email, demo-day investor introductions.
  • Antler Final Selection — final round selection email (<3% acceptance rate).

How this meets MC2:
Competitive merit-based selection demonstrating external industry recognition.

MC3 – Hyperledger Open Source Contribution (Linux Foundation)

  • <7% acceptance global open-source internship (LFOS).
  • Contributions to Hyperledger Climate Action & Accounting SIG.
  • Merged PRs, CI/CD pipeline improvements, later contributors referencing my work.
  • Project later integrated into IBM Call for Code 2022 winner.
  • GitHub history showing multi-year contributions to major open source projects (dating back to 2019).

How this meets MC3:
Significant contribution to an open-source digital tech project with external validation, recognised by maintainers.

Optional Criteria 1 (OC1) — Innovation

OC1-A – SavrAI Product Innovation

  • Proprietary AI reasoning engine (deal-breaker rules, decision trees, domain-specific logic).
  • Cost-per-wear intelligence module.
  • Architecture diagrams + code excerpts (non-confidential).
  • Third-party validation: accelerator selection + investor engagement.

OC1-B – Sony “kikAI” Automation System (Innovation inside employment)

  • First AI-based computer-vision automation system for BRAVIA testing.
  • Core technical design: image pipeline, CV workflows, automated multi-model testing.
  • Adopted across 22 European regions for every BRAVIA release since 2022.
  • Third-party verification: letters from ex-Divisional Director + senior engineer (also a stakeholder).

Optional Criteria 3 (OC3) — Impact

OC3-A – SavrAI Commercial Traction

  • Stripe payment confirmation (first customer payment).
  • Google Analytics: ~570 new users + 95 returning, 100% organic traffic.
  • Global adoption across cities (UK, US, UAE, India).
  • User testimonials and unsolicited inbound interest.
  • Investor interest (emails confirming deck reviews + follow-ups).

OC3-B – Sony TV Channel Editor App (Launched to 100K+ users)

  • Led end-to-end release-readiness and verification engineering.
  • 64+ test cycles, 231 issues coordinated.
  • App reached 100K+ downloads across EU with postive reveiws on PlayStore/appstore and zero critical post-launch issues.
  • Received Sony FY22 Technical Excellence Award (internal recognition for engineering quality).

OC3-C – kikAI Requirements Delivery (High-impact internal contribution)

  • Delivered 50+ cross-functional automation requirements for testing across 22 markets.
  • Included handling a major escalated market quality issue: 4 weeks → 2–3 days reproduction.
  • Verified by senior engineer (the requirement stakeholder) in reference letter.

Would appreciate feedback on:

  1. Whether MC3 (Hyperledger open source contribution) is placed correctly or should it go as OC2.
  2. I merged speaking at 1 high-profile international conference (Data innovation) with 500+ attendees and one other GirlsWhoML event I hosted and spoke at in the UK (national level) with <100 (53) attendees but with high impact, with MC1. Does that make MC1 stronger?
  3. Whether having two OC1 + three OC3 evidences is acceptable or should I limit to exactly two per criteria.
  4. Any red flags remaining or areas needing further strengthening.

Thank you all again for your time and support!

2

Hi @Pranamika_Pandey

I don’t remember the past feedback and how it was incorporated but sharing a few points on the current one:

  1. MC1 2nd virtual event won’t qualify as its <100 attendees, virtual. If the LinkedIn engagement wasn’t significantly high then it’s better to skip.
  2. Accelerator selections and “merit based acceptances” are not valid evidences. Would highly recommend going through the guidelines to understand acceptable evidences.
    3 OC1.a: third party validation needs to demonstrate your significant role in this innovation and its impact. Investor engagement towards the company does not attribute to your role in the innovation. You should instead attach a letter from the investor highlighting your role and impact along with funding details. “Interest from an investor” is not strong proof of your role in this innovation and its impact.
  3. Similarly for OC3, unsolicited interests and investor interests are not valid proofs. Please refer to guidelines.
  4. In OC3.C it looks like more of describing what you did and not the impact of it on core company metrics which is the key ask of this criteria.
  5. OC3.B is also self claims. Internal awards are insufficient and often not considered. Please refer guidelines.
1 Like
3

Your MC2 with accelerator selections won’t work as standalone evidence. I’ve seen multiple applications get rejected for using accelerator acceptances as proof of recognition - Tech Nation explicitly states that merit-based selections alone aren’t sufficient. The same applies to Antler’s acceptance rate being highlighted. Instead, you should focus on what came after these selections - any investor letters that specifically mention your role in the innovation, or measurable commercial traction that resulted from your work. These would work better as supporting evidence for OC1 or OC3 rather than as standalone MC.

For MC1, combining the Stockholm conference with the GirlsWhoML event is risky. The guidelines specify at least 100 attendees (not registrations) for speaking engagements, and your UK event falls short of this threshold. I’ve advised candidates in the past to only include events that clearly meet the criteria rather than trying to combine strong and weak evidence together. Your Stockholm conference with 3,500+ delegates is strong - consider using that as your primary MC1 evidence and finding another qualifying mandatory criterion instead.

On the open-source contribution, your Hyperledger work through LFOS could work as MC3 if you can demonstrate significant ongoing contributions that others reference. The key is showing that your work advanced the field, not just that you participated. Make sure you have clear evidence of your PRs being acknowledged by maintainers and how other contributors built upon your work. Your multi-year GitHub history from 2019 onwards helps establish this pattern. For your OC3 evidences, avoid relying on “investor interest” or “unsolicited testimonials” as proof of impact. Internal awards like the Sony FY22 Technical Excellence Award, while impressive personally, typically don’t carry weight in these applications. Instead, focus on third-party validated metrics - for SavrAI, use your Stripe payment confirmations and Google Analytics data, but supplement this with specific user testimonials that demonstrate measurable value. For the Sony work, the 100K+ downloads and zero critical post-launch issues are strong if you can tie them directly to your specific contributions rather than general team achievements.

You’re on the right track with documenting your innovations and contributions. With some refinement to emphasize third-party validation and measurable impact over self-reported achievements, your application will be much stronger. The technical work you’ve done is solid - it’s really about presenting it in the framework that Tech Nation expects.

2 Likes
4

Hi @pahuja , @Akash_Joshi,
Thank you again for reviewing my draft evidence. Your feedback has been extremely helpful. I’ve now restructured most sections based on your advice, and I’d be grateful for clarification on a few final points before I finalise everything:

1. MC1 - GirlsWhoML speaking event (attendance requirement)

I understand Tech Nation prefers events with 100+ attendees.
The Girls Who ML event had ~53 registered attendee guests (that can be seen on Luma), plus ~90+ GirlsWhoML members who just joined in-person in the event. I also have:

  • A photo of me speaking in front of the audience,
  • Public LinkedIn posts from attendees praising my insights,
  • Pre- and post-event engagement metrics from the organisers.

Q:
If my organiser is willing to confirm total audience ≥100 in writing, would this be sufficient to retain this as an MC evidence?
Or would you still advise removing it from MC and keeping only my DIS keynote?

2. MC2 - Accelerator selection & industry recognition

I understand that accelerator acceptance alone is not valid MC.
However, my accelerator director (Soonami) has provided a formal reference letter stating:

  • Why I was selected (technical strength + execution speed),
  • How many investors reached out after my Demo Day pitch,
  • How I performed relative to the cohort,
  • Public LinkedIn recognition from them (unprompted).

Q:
If I package this as:
“External industry recognition by an accelerator director + public recognition + what happened after selection (investor inbound + performance)”,
would this satisfy MC2?
Or is it still safer to drop accelerator selection entirely from MC?

3. Investor interest, can I use email evidence?

An investor emailed me after meeting at a VC event asking for my deck and confirming interest in continuing the conversation.

My accelerator director’s letter also explicitly mentions that multiple investors expressed interest after Demo Day.

Q:
Does an email from the investor + mention from accelerator director strengthen MC2 / OC3?
Or is a dedicated investor support letter still required?

4. OC2 - Hyperledger open-source contribution (voluntary work)

My contribution was in 2021, with:

  • 44 merged PRs,
  • My CI/CD workflow adopted by other contributors,
  • A peer explicitly referencing my work in a later PR,
  • Me onboarding new contributors & answering maintainer queries.

Qs:

  • Does “ongoing contribution” mean ongoing today, or ongoing during that programme period?
  • Is the peer referencing my workflow considered sufficient “acknowledgement” under OC2?

5. Reference letters - similar structure

Two of my recommenders signed via DocuSign but kept a similar structure/template (even though the content is different).

Q:
As long as the letters:

  • are signed,
  • contain unique content,
  • come from different recommenders,
  • and have unique DocuSign audit trails,

Is similarity in formatting/style a risk?

Thank you again for your guidance. Your input is massively helping me strengthen the application.

5

@Pranamika_Pandey

Yes! This can work as it’s their event and they can validate this claim with a letter, however, make sure your corresponding evidence is not contradicting their claim. For instance, if the image you took and presenting, shows a view of empty sits with 15 people.

If I package this as:
“External industry recognition by an accelerator director + public recognition + what happened after selection (investor inbound + performance)” ,
would this satisfy MC2?
Or is it still safer to drop accelerator selection entirely from MC?

Yes! With a letter from Soonami, who is a director at the accelerator, this can work if the focus of her letter clearly states not just technical strength + execution speed but how its relevant to digital technology sector, how they recognized it and made their decisions on these basis.

Does ç strengthen MC2 / OC3?
Or is a dedicated investor support letter still required?

An email from the investor + mention from accelerator director can show that they recognize and appreciate what you are worth, which can work for a very weak MC, and should be complemented but for OC3, no because there is no element of significant technical, commercial or entrepreneurial contributions to the field here.

  • Does “ongoing contribution” mean ongoing today, or ongoing during that programme period?
  • Is the peer referencing my workflow considered sufficient “acknowledgement” under OC2?

Ongoing could simply mean consistent, not just in 2021 and that’s all. May not be today but overtime in the last 5 years and yes peer referencing your workflow can be seen as you being recognized even amongst other professionals.

Is similarity in formatting/style a risk

Yes! A very high one. The chances of two different people writing a letter that will have similar formatting and style for the same individual is slim and may be termed as self authored.

All the best

2 Likes
6

Hi @Pranamika_Pandey

  1. Yes organizer letter confirming audience size will be good however or as an event itself this is not a big
    tech event. Your Stockholm conference should carry the strength primarily.
  2. Accelerator letter is better however it is still an acceptance and doesn’t demonstrate industry recognition. Hence not the strongest. But a mix of evidences is fine so you can keep it.
  3. Interest emails are insufficient and invalid to prove any of the criteria’s. Confirmed funding is relavant.
    5.ongoing contribution means consistent contribution over a period of time till today or for a long duration of years.
  4. Yes same template/formatting is a big risk.
1 Like
7
  1. Yes that should be sufficient, but you still need proof of attendees from the RSVPs to the event.
  2. Yup, you need to showcase actual results though
  3. Unlikely, you may be able to use it as a supporting evidence for recognition somewhere but it doesn’t stand a chance as a standalone evidence.
  4. Ongoing contribution means you’re contributing to ANY open-source repo since then, not just this one.
  5. I don’t see a risk here