You mentioned in your last response that the assessor did not bother to check the Facebook page. What evidence had you provided for them to check your Facebook page if not the link?
That was a mistake since i thought they might would check the facebook page.
However what can be done now ? Is there any way
That’s should work but you need to clearly show how your company website meets this The “digital technology sector” or “product-led digital technology companies” are defined as businesses that provide a proprietary digital technical service/product/platform/hardware as their primary revenue source. The creation of software, processing/storage of data, or the creation/application of technical computing hardware is often a central aspect of their business model."
You need to explain that the primary revenue is x product or hardware is the main source of revenue. They mentioned typo in the website, could this be a translation issue?
1 Like
APPEAL VERSION:
With great respect to the panel feedback, I would like to appeal my Assessment Panel feedback for OC3 to clarify the key issue raised in where the Assessment Panel feedback specifically highlights that the company “The Techrotics Lab” is not a product-led company.
I have segregated the feedback into 3 parts to answer the points raised for ease of the assessor.
As per the Tech Nation Guide for ‘Optional Criteria 3’ on Tech Nation website, How do I demonstrate that I have made a significant technical, commercial or entrepreneurial contributions to the field as a founder, senior executive, board member or employee of a product-led digital technology company?
- TN feedback Part 1: “Whilst we acknowledge the accounts, the evidence of work and the reference letter for the candidate’s work at the Techrotics Lab, there is insufficient evidence to prove it’s a product-led company, which is critical to meet the requirements for OC3.”
A. I would like to underscore the following parts in relevant documents that are acknowledged by Tech Nation as part of the feedback:
I. OC3-Reference letter - Paragraph 2 mentions my algorithm expertise as key to integrating technology with two products. The 5th line in the same paragraph clearly mentions the word “product” reflecting that the company “The Techrotics Lab” which I co-founded (towards which this letter is written) develops and has developed technology products that are innovative and have significantly impacted customers in real life. This is also confirmed by various pictures of the product, architecture diagram & documentation across the whole application including other OC3 documents. The entire architecture along with real pictures of the tech-integrated hardware wheelchair in real life are self- explanatory of the nature of this product being a hardware tech product and not a service.
ii. This is also validated with the evidences in MC that highlight the innovation I have done to bring this proprietary technology product to life - these evidences have been acknowledged by Tech Nation.”
iii. Social Media Presence:
As recognized by the assessor, we offer IoT and hardware integration services, which are clearly mentioned on our website’s top bar menu. Currently, we have temporarily taken off our service packages for direct sales of the tech-enabled Home automation kit product to reassess our pricing and build a separate web page for the products. The top bar menu highlighted Hardware Integration and the AI Research Lab as our main sources of revenue.
“I would like to bring the assessor’s attention to the Youtube Links I have mentioned in OC3: Youtube Video 2: (Link)
764 views Aug 6, 2020
Please note the title of the video that mentions - Eye gaze technology developed and manufactured by Eye Interactions & The Techrotics Lab and the display of a tech-integrated product itself in the video. IT is also referenced in MC1 In Paragraph 6, Page 1, Line 4, as clearly stated that the initial research was conducted under the Eye Interaction initiative that we founded. Later, this project became part of The Techrotics Lab, indicating that the hardware development of the eye gaze wheelchair was carried out at The Techrotics Lab. Further please find reference in my personal statement In Paragraph 7, Page 2,where I have noted that further research for the eye gaze algorithm was also conducted at The Techrotics Lab.”
iv: The Techrotics Lab derives its name from the fusion of “Tech,” representing technology, and “rotics,” inspired by robotics. As a product-led company, we specialize on cutting-edge technological advancements and robotics to deliver high-quality, impactful products for our clients.
- TN feedback Part 2 “ When reviewing the company website, despite saying it is a state- of-the-art AI platform, the services suggest a website design company that comes across as a consultancy company. We also noted the spelling mistakes on the website.”
a. “I would like to humbly request for a re-assessment of the website as it seems that the assessor might have not gone through the entire website. I would like to breakdown our website here:
i. The key message of our services verbatim “Techroticstechnologieslab is an innovative AI solution provider with expertise in Computer Vision and AI-related technologies, aiming to establish an unbiased world and be incorporated into top Pakistani AI companies.” followed by our first service “Programming services for hardware” We do offer UI/UX development as well but our first listed service is still hardware integration which is self-explanatory of a product-led work as implied by “hardware” and not just consultancy service.
ii. The section of Technologies we use clearly displays technologies used in advanced tech products.
iii. The 2nd service package offered at $80/mo mentions“Complete hardware assembly” as its inclusion implying our offering of hardware product itself - this is unrelated to the services of any standard website development consultancy globally as this is advanced hardware technology expertise.
iv. The first project listed under the Projects that we undertake as a company is “Hardware Integration” - again underscoring our product-first offering and also complying with the eligibility roles of applicants as per TN guidelines that includes “Hardware Engineers” as eligible applicants.
v. Please also note the testimonial from the customer “Paul Munni” that has complimented our outstanding product delivery.
And thank you for bringing spelling mistake to my notice - it’s definitely not a reflection of our product quality standards. Even though the spelling mistake doesn’t take away my credibility of innovating an impactful tech product using advanced technologies and confounding a product-driven tech company, I would like to thank you for highlighting this. I humbly hope that this does not cast shadow on my demonstrated expertise and contribution in high impact driving tech product work & effort.
TN feedback Part 3 “The school of leadership doesn’t seem to be a product-led technology company. Even though we acknowledge the importance of recognition in MC, evidence in this criteria needs to be from a product-led technology company.”
a. I understand there was confusion regarding the School of Leadership. It is important to clarify that the School of Leadership is not related to OC3 but was used to fulfill the Mandatory Criteria, highlighting my recognition in the UNICEF Generation Unlimited competition. Tech Nation has accepted this criterion, and it should not be linked to OC3.
Hi @Francisca_Chiedu @pahuja @alexnk i will be grateful if you review my appeal.
1 Like
Massive apologies for the very late thank you @pahuja, @Popo_Aguda and @Francisca_Chiedu. I hope you’re all well!
I submitted the review form on July 15 and received the endorsement on July 25.
I cannot thank you enough for such valuable advice, especially when I was losing hope and didn’t know what to do next.
It was the longest and painful 8+ weeks of wait and rejection. But I hope my case would delight everyone here.
I’m unsure what part of my appeal was successful, but here are some tips for the review/appeal:
- Overall: Break down their feedback, extract quotes for the reasons for non-endorsement, and keep the appeal simple and easy to understand.
- Check other documents: See if documents from other criteria support or address the criteria you didn’t pass.
- Review existing evidence: Since you can’t send additional proof, carefully examine the links and documents you used to see if they prove what they requested.
- Consider other criteria: Explore criteria you didn’t apply for. Determine if your evidence could support applying for different criteria. I applied for MC and OC1+3 and fortunately had supporting documents.
- Clearly reference documents: Briefly explain which documents are relevant and how they address the feedback.
6 Likes
my partner applied jul 9; making it 3 weeks tomorrow since we applied. we haven’t gotten any edits… should we be worried please? do you think we should send an email?
1 Like
Nothing to worry, three weeks is still early.
1 Like
Your feedback part1 seems ok by pointing to existing evidence.
Your part 2’s explanation outside of your 10 evidence may not be accepted.
Your part 3’s if TN accepted your MC, its fine then. Let’s considered it as a weak evidence for your OC3. Just keep the text space low as you are doing.
You can try to put these in the appeal form to see if they fit in. Please remember that assessor may not accept your additional explanation outside of your prior evidence.
Also I think it is better to create a new topic rather than asking in “Stage 1 waiting times” topic. @Adeelawan12
1 Like
So, we eventually emailed Tech Nation - Home Office last night because it felt a bit strange. Considering the feedback trend is about 3 to 4 weeks and we hadn’t received a single edit since we applied on July 9, we were concerned. They responded this morning, saying there was a system error and they are just now seeing our application. They apologized for the oversight and mentioned that the process time is shorter than the standard 8 weeks. They will start processing our application immediately and will inform us once they have feedback. Imagine if we had just waited endlessly… sigh. I recommend that if you experience any delays, please don’t wait—email them. I hope this helps someone.
4 Likes
Hey everyone! Just wanted to post timelines here for reference for other people. Applied for Exceptional Promise as a funded/post-revenue startup founder/software engineer.
Submitted 9th June
Edits:
10 Jun 2024 17:38 (+04)
11 Jun 2024 11:29 (+04)
11 Jun 2024 12:14 (+04)
1 Jul 2024 15:02 (+04)
Endorsed 2 Jul 2024 18:22 (+04)
I was also hoping to be added to the alumni slack channel if @Francisca_Chiedu you could help.
2 Likes
Applied End of June / Early July? Has anyone gotten feedback or are we in for a long wait
Congratulations @hSurti - Do fill this form for the Alumni Slack community - Global Talent - Alumni network registration form | Tech Nation . That is the latest form link.
Congratulations 
. Just checking did you apply from Uk or abroad?
Hi everyone,
I’ve been reading forum discussions about application edits and I’m curious where assessors’ edits are visible.
Do they appear on the “Previous Tasks” page of the submitted application?
Also, I’m wondering what these edits typically entail/mean.
I submitted my application on August 9th, so I understand that it’s still early for any edits or answer on my application.
Thanks for any insights!
If you look at the ‘Preview’ section, you can see when it was edited last. It only really means that someone from TechNation has viewed your application. Honestly, there’s not really a pattern to these edits if you were curious about that too, I was endorsed after 5 x
1 Like
have you heard back from HO?
Did you apply business or technical?