Confused about the “Original Contribution of Major Significance” criterion — is adoption the only way to prove it?
With the wave of denials lately, it seems like Original Contribution (OC) is a major sticking point, and the criterion feels like it has a significant gray area in how it’s interpreted.
A lot of discussions I’ve come across suggest that OC is being rejected when adoption is limited to a single internal company, but I’m struggling to understand why that’s the deciding factor.
The criterion is “Original Contribution of Major Significance”, not “Original Contribution of Major Adoption,” right? Adoption seems like one way to demonstrate significance, but shouldn’t it be just one of several valid angles?
For example, if you developed a solution to a long-standing, well-documented problem in your field, with clear benchmarks showing the gap that existed, and you can articulate how your work directly addresses those challenges, shouldn’t that be sufficient to establish significance on its own?
Is the expectation that significance must be proven through external adoption, or are adjudicators just treating it as the easiest measurable proxy?
Would love to hear how others have approached this and won the criterion.