Permission: good
Metadata: good
Sync: good

- 6.399: I don't think this note should be there, it's going to the bass and it's not timed correctly. If you want to include it it should be a 16th at 6.325. If you do decide to include this note you're missing similar notes later on, I would just omit it and go with the higher pitched piano notes only.
- 20.565: I get omitting the roll here for difficulty concerns, but why not include the kick? You do include it at 25.271 and 29.977.
- 29.977: This should be on a different column because this signifies some form of repetition with 30.271 while they're different sounds.
- 34.683: Same here.
- 57.281: Shouldn't be a trill, this should be a descending pattern. (the pitch descends)
- 58.212: Why include this kick but not 57.918?
- 58.384: Why not include this note? That's where the sound starts, I would also omit 58.506.
- 60.443, 60.516: Subjective, but I feel like these are missing notes to the high pitch bleep sound.
- 61.840, 63.604: I think it would be cool if these hands were different from the ones before them, it makes more sense PR wise. I think something like [24] -> [123] would work really well for 61.693 for example.
- 64.781: Only a single for this cymbal crash?
- 67.575: Should be different from the jump before it for PR.
- 68.972: I have a hard time hearing what this 16th is going to?
- 72.330: This should be a 16th at 72.354.
- 78.751: Why jump?
- 82.722: No jump for this tom?
- 83.899: Should repeat with the hand for PR.
- 87.532: You're not acknowledging this buzz sound at all? I think it's too similar to 86.987 and too close together to just omit, I understand it's probably a difficulty concern but you could make it a single white note at 87.532.
- 114.634: Instead of making this a 16th roll, you could just make the 8th at 114.634 a jump instead. I think it would work better and feel more accurate.
- 122.624: This should be an 8th note at 122.575 instead.
- 123.163: These notes are mistimed and shouldn't be 8ths.
- 123.997: Are you just note following the melody here? It seems like you aren't, but why not? You're somewhat following the melody with the jumps at 126.546, but then you omit 128.016, it feels a bit off.

Really dope, this chart is definitely a ton of fun, I think the file as a whole could be cleaner tho, it's hard to follow what you're doing at times. FR for the mistimings like 72.330 and 123.163 etc.

Judge Score: 7.50 - Fixes Required

MORNINGLOOM (Velocity) [7.5/10, CR]

- 00:04.008 Descending note in-relation to the [21] at 00:03.604 makes pitch relevance play a little bit lop-sided and could be re-worked to encompass the PR on this 32nd a bit better by using the right column.
- 00:20.565 Very noticable missing 12th here or 24th into [12] (if you wanted to go that dense on tech).
- 00:22.035 Same as above, but without the 24th suggestion.
- 00:31.447 Same 12th that would otherwise be accompanied with the [23].
- 01:07.575 Check your PR in-relation to the previous [23] in this section.
- 01:09.780 I personally would've used an accented arrow here to distinguish the bass from the current melody, but there should be at least something here to denote it.
- 01:24.094 Missing 12th, part of the melody that picks up at 01:24.780.

Given how varied and dense in-terms of difficulty the majority of the file is in-comparison to roughly 00:17.133 - 00:36.545 (after the intro), I would put a lot heavier recommendations on taking a look at notes earlier in the file vs later in the file, since it's missing quite a few notes in a section that could use a fair bit more balancing for the overall difficulty throughout the file.

Structure still holds particularly well with some lenience given to how some of the otherwise 32nd bursts being 16ths instead.

Beyond some slight repetition and stuff mentioned above, s'aight.

Judge Score: 7.50 - Change Recommended

Checking in on the status of this submission, as it's past the 1 month probationary period with a "Fixes Required" flag, but there's been no acknowledgment of judge notes or fixes submitted.

Files/Songs with the "Fixes Required" tag require at a minimum a fix submitted based on the above notes from judges, or a response appealing the notes involved in the reason for it being labeled as Fixes Required.

I will check back on this at a later date. If it does not receive a response or fix by then, it could risk rejection.

@M0nkeyz this satisfy the FR? Looks ok to me.

Really sorry for the late reply, changes look good to me