Hi, I just got a feedback, rejected. I am definitely appealing.
1 Like
I am trying to compile my feedback and evidence in a single post… the last edit was on 28-08-2024.
1 Like
All criterias, I just posted my feedback, you can look at it in the new post I just uploaded.
Where I see edit history in tech nation portal? Would I be notified?
I haven’t had any edit since I submitted it on 6th August. At what point do we have to contact home office?
Thanks. Normally, do we contact Tech Nation (which email?) in this case or Home Office?
I was rejected in MC and OC3 which i believe assessor has totally overlooked and misjudged. below is my performa
I have worked on my draft appeal and i will really appreciated if i get your feedback on this.
With great respect to the panel feedback, I would like to appeal my Assessment Panel feedback for MC and OC3 to clarify the key issue raised in where the Assessment Panel feedback.
I have segregated the feedback into 3 parts to answer the points raised for ease of the assessor.
TN feedback Part 1: The first letter of recommendation describes website development and maintenance. The second letter discusses the applicant’s involvement in developing AI algorithms and ML models, however fails to discuss the applicant’s individual contributions in any detail.
1: I believe my individual contributions were clearly demonstrated in my first letter of recommendation (LOR1). Paragraph 2 highlights my leadership in the successful execution of a UAE-based real estate project, where I led the software development team. Paragraph 3 further emphasizes my role in translating complex requirements into intuitive user interfaces and robust functionalities, demonstrating that I wrote the entire web portal code. Additionally, paragraph 4 underscores my innovation in eye gaze technology, which won the Generation Unlimited competition, as well as the publication by UNICEF on my individual innovation highlighted in “MC1_Recognition_GENERATION UNLIMITED COMPETITION_GTV “. I personally developed the AI algorithm for this project, as evidenced by the document “OC3_KeyEngineeredProduct_And_Impact” referenced in paragraph 1.
2: My second letter of recommendation (LOR2) clearly details my individual achievements, particularly in paragraph 5, where it highlights my development of an advanced machine learning model that significantly improved the accuracy and efficiency of our AI system. This model, which I researched and implemented, was a critical success in one of our largest projects (as referenced in paragraph 2, “Sarah.Schindlers.co.za”). Additionally, my leadership as the forefront AI expert is emphasized in paragraph 5, demonstrating my deep involvement and technical expertise.
TN feedback Part 2: We note the $1000 bootcamp award for Eye Gaze, incubator inclusion and Yesist participation. Overall, the evidence does not sufficiently show extraordinary ability through emerging national or international recognition.
3:
• I would like to respectfully address the feedback regarding the recognition of my achievements. I believe the document MC1_Recognition_GENERATION UNLIMITED COMPETITION_GTV provides sufficient evidence to meet the criteria outlined by Tech Nation. It clearly demonstrates my emerging national and international recognition through winning the prestigious Generation Unlimited competition, organized by UNICEF in South Asia. This achievement, along with my innovation to empower disabled individuals, is further validated by articles published by UNICEF (link) and Generation Unlimited (link). These documents showcase my international and national recognition. Furthermore, as a result of this achievement, I was chosen by UNICEF as the City Lead to foster innovative mindsets, which is detailed in MC3_Growth_Of_Leadership_Foundation. Paragraph 2 of this document highlights my leadership in facilitating a 10-day program for young entrepreneurs, where I helped develop solutions to improve lives and the planet and One group was the winner of next cohort facilitated by me. My selection for this role underscores my standing at the forefront of my field.
Additionally, my leadership and development of the Eye Gaze wheelchair are highlighted in LOR3 (Paragraph 2) and further validated by the reference letter included in MC1 (Paragraph 2, Line 3). This innovation is discussed in detail, emphasizing my exceptional abilities. The document OC3_Keyengineeredproduct also highlights the impact of this technology, further referenced in the UNICEF article in the last page also Top 4 SAMA NEWS in Pakistan news clip is also evident where i discussed the algorithm i wrote and futures applications that can be developed using this innovative algorithm. Moreover, my published academic work based on the Eye Gaze algorithm in (OC4 Paper contribution and further invitation) further strengthens my case for extraordinary ability with new innovative concept. Given the above evidence, I kindly request a reconsideration of my individual contributions and recognition.
• I led the Growth of the School of Leadership Foundation, as evidenced in MC3_Growth_Of_Leadership_Foundation. Paragraph 2 details my leadership as the City Lead for Karachi, where I facilitated a cohort of young entrepreneurs and drove initiatives to find solutions for improving lives. Furthermore, paragraph 3 highlights that under my leadership, one startup from Pakistan was selected for the Generation Unlimited competition in 2021. My role in leading this initiative is also validated by the reference letter included in MC3_Growth_Of_Leadership_Foundation and further supported by email conversations with officials, as well as a booklet shared through the drive link.These achievements further underscore my leadership in driving innovation and impact, which I believe aligns with Tech Nation’s criteria.
• In my previous application (Application No. 7260708433), the evidence of my UNICEF award for eye interaction innovation and my leadership at the School of Leadership Foundation was accepted as meeting the MC, with the assessor recognizing my potential as a leading talent in the digital technology sector. However, in this application, the same evidence has been rejected, despite its relevance and significance remaining unchanged. I fully understand that different assessors may have different perspectives, but I believe this evidence clearly demonstrates my impact and recognition within the sector.
TN feedback Part 3: The evidence provided demonstrates the applicant has prototyped various robots and the Eye Gaze wheelchair and home automation kit. However, for OC3, applicant’s should demonstrate impact. In this case, we note the projects have generated £5,000 in revenue. In this case, the evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate impact.
4: I respectfully request a reconsideration of my evidence for demonstrating impact in OC3_KeyEngineeredProduct_And_Impact. This document clearly highlights the significant impact my Eye Gaze wheelchair and home automation kit have had on the lives of disabled individuals, particularly Osama, whose life was transformed by this technology. The accompanying YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTdU3pUnTFk) further validates this impact, as does the UNICEF article (https://www.unicef.org/rosa/stories/youth-empower-differently-abled-people-lead-normal-life-pakistan) Image Number 4, which mentions the positive impact these innovations have had on volunteers like Usama. Moreover, in the reference letter (Paragraph 3), it is stated that these technologies have the potential to empower 10 million disabled individuals, showcasing the long-term impact that this innovation will bring to the lives of those with disabilities.
Additionally, the revenue generated by the eye controlled home automation kit demonstrates its success in the market. In the reference letter (Paragraph 3, Line number 4), it is mentioned that the eye-controlled home automation kit generated 1.7 million PKR (£5,000) in one month. This is further validated by the attached invoices in OC3_THE TECHROTICS LAB REVENUE AND MY STATEMENT, which show that 170 eye controlled home automation kits were sold to disabled individual within that period. Positive reviews from caregivers, included in OC3_Product_Led_Company, also demonstrate the real-life impact these technologies are having. Furthermore, my published research on the Eye Gaze algorithm, documented in OC4_Paper_Contribution_And_Further_Invitation , shows the potential for continued innovation and broader impact.
In my previous application, the assessor accepted my work, company accounts, and reference letter but noted that I needed to better demonstrate my company as product-led. In my new application, I have addressed this by providing screenshots of invoices for home automation kit sales, customer reviews, and evidence that 80% of my company’s revenue is generated from selling the home automation kit, as validated by the reference letter. Despite these additions, my application was rejected on the grounds of impact, which had been previously accepted by another assessor. I kindly ask for a review of this decision, as the additional evidence clearly demonstrates the financial and societal impact of my work.
@Francisca_Chiedu @alexnk @alex_james @Mors_E @Adebayo_Gbemi @snailxu @Zahid_Ahmed @cosmic.wilderness @coffeexpac Your feedback to this will highly be appreciated. Thank you very much
Anyone who can respond to above ?
hi @Adeelawan12
please create as separate post for your result in a as this post only for waiting times.
thanks
I do not see any edit history in the application, but I received an email for endorsement within 7 working days. I submitted the application on 26 August and received the endorsement email on 4 September.
5 Likes
wow, this is the strangest one I’ve heard.
Did you end up contacting them?
I did! To Technation email. But no one reply me yet.
Hi everyone, I submitted my application on 30th August from within the UK. Wondering if anyone else here has applied around the same time and heard back yet?
I applied around 4th Sep. I haven’t heard anything either.