Tech Nation rejected my application with mistakes that ignore their own guidelines, thoughts?
MC Salary: £2,222/month, 7-15x Nigeria’s £140-300 average (payslips shown). “Not high for industry” does MC need a UK standard?
LOR Recommendation Letters: One CEO, One CTO, spoke well, but tossed for CV gaps
MC and OC3 Referee: Product Owner, Lead Engineer, tossed for “manager” labels (they’re collaborators).
OC2 TikTok/Instagram: Over 6M+ views teaching tech (screenshots, analytics). “Self-authored” and “can’t validate links” meanwhile screenshots are shown for each video, screenshots of me answering questions. OC2 lists content creation.
OC3 Open-Source : 66+ repos (e.g., 30 stars). “Open source not related”, it’s literally in OC3’s text! “Starting or contributing to open source projects in a way that has been acknowledged by peers as advancing the field;”
I’m quite shocked, guidelines say one thing, they say another. Anyone else hit these errors? Opinions on their reasoning?
They didn’t speak of the other MC I gave which was a mapping engine project so I guess it went through, they said the portal project I gave was normal work of an employee, but it doesn’t seem so to me, I proved impact and use of high tech, basically I built an AI campaign generator, redesign of the portal which showed retention of users and shared campaign which improved collaboration in creating campaigns, to clarify 4 MC. So they complained the recommendation letters fall under a similar time frame, this was because they are from partners of my parent company, so they discounted the two recommendation letters, they added they don’t see the two companies in my CV or LinkedIn.
For manager labels, that’s the reference letter for MC, a partner of my parent company, they complained it’s from my manager but this project owner is not my manager but an external collaborator. Same with OC3, they complained it’s a manager but it’s not, it was an MLH programme so the managers were from MLH, not the companies partnering with MLH, so I got a reference from a lead engineer in the project, they complained of the timeframe being only 4 months, but this engineer has known me since 2022 and spoke so well of me. In total, 4 MC, 3 OC3, 3 OC2.
You need to address every point raised in the appeal and route them to parts of your original application that answers their questions. MC needs to show a higher scale and impact to the sector than the company itself. It is the toughest criteria to clear and every evidence used under MC must point to how it has impacted the sector.
Your application shows strong technical contributions but needs better alignment with Tech Nation’s evaluation patterns. The salary evidence requires clearer context - speaking to your contributions to the projects in addition to a high salary. For recommendation letters, seek external validators like hackathon organizers or open-source maintainers who can vouch for your independent work.
The open-source contributions should be reframed to show peer acknowledgment - include GitHub issue discussions where others adopted your solutions or list organizations using your projects. For the AI portal work, emphasize what made it exceptional beyond typical employee tasks, like developing novel algorithms or creating reusable frameworks that went beyond company requirements.
Your social media evidence needs third-party validation - explicitly write down the acknowledgement by Adobe with screenshots or have a reputable tech publication cite your TikTok tutorials. For hackathons, highlight how the judging criteria align with OC2’s “advancing the field” requirement through the competition’s official rubrics.
Reorganize your documents using Tech Nation’s exact criterion phrases as section headers, with bullet points mapping each evidence piece to specific guideline excerpts. This forces evaluators to engage with your alignment claims rather than making subjective judgments.
The feedback says the companies your referees work for are not on your CV. I think you didn’t follow the guide in putting your application together. Social media evidence are not sufficient or standalone evidence.
