Link to previous post

On submitting a revised draft with a cited source showing my proposed technology is a new product released in 2018, the evaluator has rejected it with the following comment:

The paper discusses Datadog and new features including logging without limits. While the feature recommended was released in 2018, the technology from Datadog is from 2010.

 I feel this is akin to saying "While Amazon SageMaker is an emerging ML tool, the managed infrastructure it runs on from AWS is from 2004". Logging Without Limits is not a "feature" of some nonexistent overarching Datadog product, but a specific, unique, individually-billed, self-contained product released in 2018 to replace the company's 2010-era legacy product. I'm not really sure how I can make that any clearer in the paper.

I'm more than a little frustrated, having worked with Datadog's product offering professionally before and after the release of LWL; the legacy log management tool and the LWL suite that replaced it are clearly different products, to the point where I had to argue for buy-in on the new product at a previous employer, who was skeptical about opening up our logging to external analytics. (Successfully argue, I might add) 

The official response of the course instructors group boils down to "your professional experience is irrelevant, the evaluator obviously knows more than you do. Just use the rubric."

I've got 17 days to finish my degree. That was going to be a challenge when it was just the PAs for D085 and D088 plus my Capstone. Bear in mind, I submitted this PA initially 11 days ago.

​

Does anybody have a recommendation for a product that actually meets the evaluators' arbitrary definition of "emerging"? Because even really bleeding-edge stuff like Google Quantum Playground was released in 2017 or earlier. (Not that it would even apply here, because it doesn't meet any of the product needs stated in the premise)