Thanks for the notes, both of you. I'll separate my comments since they're pretty long...

Pizza:
25.742/etc. - These go to the vocal samples, but I'm admittedly not too sure whether it's even appropriate to layer these sounds. It feels a bit off, but I also feel that it'd be too repetitive if I keep it as is..

36.748/etc. - Yeah, I think it's better for me to use hands instead. Will change this.

77.550/132.267 - Fixed.

136.355 - Changed the triple to [234].

207.660 - Missing note is intentional because of the bass kicks and I didn't want to make this too spiky.

224.091 - I can hear a quiet syllable here, but maybe I'm dumb because I think I'm hearing a quiet syllable here because of the phrase before it (which does have 2 doubles instead of 1)

231.716 - The syllable is on a 32nd, so I think I just went for a more consistent layering approach (layering is the same as the first verse of this sample).

241.229 - Good ear, thanks.

244.374 - Would mean that I'd have to anchor a lot of the other held vocals before this... Not sure if I think it'd be a good idea.

M0nkeyz:
Thanks for the notes. I think we have some fundamental disagreements here that I don't think will be resolved, so I don't think I can really address most of your notes.

Pitch relevance:
I generally didn't follow pitch relevance throughout the file because I'm actually tonedeaf. There was no intent of following PR in a very strict sense here aha. Your notes here basically imply that I have to repattern the entire thing to fit PR, and I think that's a bit excessive for a judge personally.

I focused on a more kinaesthetic approach here by "grouping" sounds together and creating patterns out of them. For a quick example, this is what I did:
5.379 to 5.818 - one group (lower-pitched phrase). the patterns are both kinaesthetically distinct and visually separated from the group after.
6.008 to 6.480 - one group (overall much higher-pitched phrase)
6.952 to 7.266 - one group, felt that 7.267 should be a double because it was a stronger synth note
7.581 to 7.895 - one group
8.210 to 8.524 - one group, exact same group as above
8.839 to 9.153 - one group, similar group to above except the third note of the group is different
9.467 to 10.096 - one group

10.411 to 10.883 - same as 5.379 to 5.818
11.040 to 11.511 - same as 6.008 to 6.480
etc.

15.442 to 15.914 - one group, I placed doubles on the 4ths because I wanted to give more emphasis to the melody rather than the background synths/percussion. I used two minijacks here because I break down this group into sets of 2 and that minijacks are more much salient to players in a continuous 8th stream.
16.071 to 16.543 - one group, just a modified variant of 6.008 to 6.480
16.857 to 17.329 - one group, similar group to 6.952 to 7.266
17.644 to 17.958 - one group, similar group to 7.581 to 7.895 but with minijacks since there's a continuous stream of 8ths
18.272 to 18.587 - one group, exact same group as above

You kinda get the idea. There is a structure going on and I don't think it's really fair to call it random unless you're looking at the composition of each group, which is mostly done for kinaesthetic reasons (they feel a certain way). Following PR strictly goes against the kinaesthetic effect I'm looking for and is also something that I wasn't going for in the first place.

That said I think the more fundamental element of pitch relevance felt by a player is present in the chart regardless: there is very clear repetition and you yourself have acknowledged a good amount of it. I felt that repetition is important here because 1) it's something that a player can more actively feel if the patterns are distinctive enough (most of them are, since there are 8th minijacks or minitrills present and they're arranged in a specific way) and 2) I think it's much easier to distinguish between a repeated rhythm compared to the specific notes in a rhythm.

16ths:
I'll bring up what I said from Black Chocolates here because it's also quite relevant here:
A lot of the Sharpnel charts that I've sent (and including cheatreal) are dumps -- many of the 16ths present in the charts are ghost notes.

I feel that, as charting conventions become less lax to following music in a more literal sense, I think judges should also be more open to less literal approaches to charting as well. But I also understand if you feel that this still does not feel faithful to the music; it might be better to delegate your opinion to someone else by then, unless you really strongly feel that the chart should not be accepted.

To more granular notes:
Layered the first 3 notes of the intro.
25.506 - Vocal samples are quite soft and I think layering the 4ths with them would make this section a little bit too convoluted.
46.575 - Changed to a single.
66.386/86.512 - I think the [12][34][12] here is impossible not to layer because the bass kicks are so pronounced.
77.550 - Already addressed from Pizza's notes.
257.738 - I think the percussion there stands out enough for it to be layered.

I don't think there's much else for me to input unfortunately; I don't think that the patterning is really "random", moreso just not arranged in a conventional way (a la PR). I think there is a structure to the patterning, and maybe it's far more abstract than PR, but I think it evokes some effect on players regardless.

A new chart file was uploaded with the following changes:
----------
Note Count changed: 4012 => 4016
AVG NPS changed: 15.86607 => 15.85263
First Delay changed: 0:08 => 0:07
Hand Bias changed: 36 => 28

"My main issue with the 16th dumps in this file is that I think the progression of the intensity of the music is strongly related to sounds that fall on the 16ths. Compare the stream starting at 197.833 to the earlier JS starting at 46.889 or even when it picks up at 87.141; there is an acid melody playing on the 16ths and the overall intensity of the song is completely different because of it in my opinion. Having different jump accents for each section works, but I still think the whole file is a bit too homologous for what the music does."

I think that's the crux of the disagreement here. I think it really depends a lot on the files that you've been exposed to more than anything. A lot of my experience with charting stems from stamina pad charting which uses 16th streams in a similar way that I do, and sections are differentiated through stream patterning. Even on keyboard, I think a lot of JS charts today use lots of ghost 16ths to convey the intensity of a certain section that 8ths can't, and they use the jump accenting in particular to differentiate sections. This has been commonplace in at least more scoring-oriented charting communities for a while now, which I think is quite different from FFR and a few other circles that I think you've been around.

I hope that the discussion with other judges has been constructive as well. I think Pizza told me about it and I think that it's a very fruitful thing to do, especially with an increasing number of potential charts that won't follow charting conventions that have been slated for FFR for years. I think almost all of my charts don't follow conventions in one way or another and it was one of the main reasons I felt disincentivised to send them to FFR for a long while.

"...but I think the two can be combined, where you sometimes make small concessions in PR to make the pattern stand out more and vice versa, but when I see a section with 4 jacks on 1 column while they're different in pitch I can't help but believe that the section could be approached more appropriately."

I think most of the intro had minijacks so I'm not sure where the 4-note jack comment is coming from :P. That said I definitely get what you're saying and I think this is something that's idiosyncratic to me that most people never pointed out as "bad" until now. I've always explained to people that I don't really hear higher/lower and more of repeats of rhythms or similar-sounding rhythms. I guess a quick example would be something like when I hear "A-B-A-B" I would do something like 2 minijacks rather than a 4-note trill because it's the repetition that stands out to me rather than the changes in pitch.

I don't know, pitch relevance to me has always been quite... unnecessarily specific to me personally. I think that there is a lot of value to doing something like using a descending pattern for a phrase that is very blatantly descending in rhythm and vice versa or repeated rhythms, but beyond that, I personally never found any intrigue in PR. I think the value of PR stems less from the pitch component and more from the ability to convey repeated rhythms and rhythms that are distinctly different from one another. But this seems to be a minority opinion among steppers in this community, so I don't really know what I should do from here.

The approach I laid out was mostly how I stepped it and admittedly in hindsight I don't even know if it was a good idea for me to do so because it's basically how I organise sound in my head. I don't expect it to make sense because I think my experience when it comes to listening to music is a bit idiosyncratic (again, I'm tonedeaf, so the notion of "higher and lower notes" doesn't really make sense to me unless it's extremely blatant), and I tend to group sounds into sets of 2 or 4 to begin with because of how songs are typically constructed. You obviously come from a very different musical background given that you create music yourself, among other things.

All of these probably sound like copout reasons because there really isn't any objective backing to it, but that's because I really don't think there are objective reasons for me to justify my decisions. This is genuinely how I perceive music and how I transcribe it. All of this is not to say that your view is illegitimate or that you made a bad judge call or whatever because I totally get your reasons for giving the score that you did, but I just don't know if it's something that I can really adhere to because I really don't hear the song in the way that you're suggesting.

In the end, your call on this doesn't really matter because the chart is given a light accept, but it's something that does make it hard for me to send files to because I'm unsure about whether my approach is something that is considered acceptable by judges. I do feel that your view is justified; I just don't know whether it'd be something that can/should be consistently enforced. I wouldn't mind explaining my thought process on stepping and approaching melodic stuff more in the future, but admittedly it's also something that I'm very slowly trying to figure out myself.