TC_Halogen - 6/10
- offset is fine
- 8.614: shouldn’t this [R] be a [D] instead for the repetition you establish at the very start?
- 8.864: what’s this jump here for?
- 12.864: these weren’t jumps before, earlier on within the same section
- 15.177: missing note
- 17.239: should be a triple with your earlier established structure?
- 24.864/25.239/etc: probably should be a triple as well
- 33.614/etc: the two jumps you’re accenting here go to an instrument that’s actually constantly playing 4th notes the entire time
- 48.864: should be a double (it is in numerous other locations in the section)
- 55.864: this would be appropriate as triples given the way you established the section
- 1:02.364: another missing triple; just search for these and ensure that you handle them appropriately, as it is a repeated issue throughout the chart
- 1:04.114: I feel like there’s a bit of a lost opportunity to add some more relevance here given that you’ve got that repeating/climbing melody in the background -- not saying you need to directly just go 1-1-2-2-3-3-4-4 with your triples, but you could actually utilize some pattern repetition and it’d be pretty effective and would also add some difficulty, which this chart honestly needs to break the 100+ barrier in my eyes
- layering could be improved a little bit to be more consistent throughout
- not quite hard enough for this batch, but I’d not slot this into the queue even if it were in another queue, it needs a little bit more polishing

Wiosna - 6/10
10.864 - missing double based on this section's structure (vs. 8.739)
17.114 - wouldn't make this a triple given how triples are being used here. would make 17.239 a triple instead
19.427 - missing 16th
20.239 - minor suggestion but i do think that this should start on the right hand (preferably column 3) because of the amount of strain on the left hand as is
21.114 - in general i do find this 16th stream to be a bit anomalous compared to the rest since it's mostly 16th triplet rolls while the rest of the streams do have some form of tension through 8th minijacks or split rolls. i'd try to make this stream a bit more varied and straining with harder patterns.
22.864/22.989 - there was a bit earlier where you didn't use doubles for sounds like this, and i think using straight singles here is appropriate too
23.552 - in general i think having a 7-note 2h trill is a bit straining when you have to juggle triples along with them, so you probably have to change up this bit. you can definitely try to keep the triples, but breaking up the 7-note 2h trill to smaller 1h minitrills would be a perfectly acceptable solution
23.864/23.989 - would say these are a bit too soft to be doubles
24.739 - wouldn't make this a triple, would make the 4th a triple instead
25.114 - ^
25.364 - shouldn't be a double, double should be on the 8th after
27.427 - missing 16th
27.864 - you made this a 2h trill in a previous iteration, and i think that it's better to keep that given that a 1h trill here would be a bit of a difficulty jump
29.864 - again, you didn't make this a double before, so you have to be more consistent with this in particular
30.739/30.802 - ghost 16ths
51.989 - either this should be a double, or 50.864/50.989 shouldn't be doubles. i would personally prefer the latter given the song's timbre, but i'll leave it up to you. there's some consistency issue either way
1:02.364 - missing triple
1:02.864 - i can definitely see what you're doing here with the alternating rhythms and such, but i do find that the monodirectional feel of this pattern makes the rhythms a bit less striking than what's in 54.864 (which is a lot more back-and-forth). i personally would prefer a variant closer to 54.864, but i'll leave this up to you
1:04.239 - pay more attention to the hidden 8th note anchors here. the anchors here are mostly arbitrary (and some are obviously inevitable when you introduce more bass kicks), but there are many spurts where there are 3 to 6 note anchors when there isn't any cue that would justify it. chordgluts that have 2-note anchors at most are usually the safest approach, anything longer i would personally like a more notable aural cue to figure out what's going on in the song to justify it.
1:17.989 - this is a bit of a spike, but it's a bit hard to give any suggestions for this section in particular. i would personally make the chord layering 3-2-3-2 instead of 3-3-3-3, and make 4-note anchors (e.g. [234][34][234][34][124][12][124][12) with that configuration instead. again though, i'll leave it up to you as to how you want to approach it

the section after is more of the same.

Firstly I think this is a fair bit below 100 difficulty, but it doesn't really matter because I judged it regardless. There are a few bits that I feel are quite overkill (the chordglut sections particularly and some of the transitions), but I think that the chart plays pretty fluently in general. My main reason for not accepting it is that the combination of the chordglut section and general inconsistencies makes this just miss the mark for CQ range, but I don’t mind giving this a CQ if the other judge believes that this is CQable. That said, I think this is better sent to a different batch. :]12) with that configuration instead. again though, i'll leave it up to you as to how you want to approach it

the section after is more of the same.

Firstly I think this is a fair bit below 100 difficulty, but it doesn't really matter because I judged it regardless. There are a few bits that I feel are quite overkill (the chordglut sections particularly and some of the transitions), but I think that the chart plays pretty fluently in general. My main reason for not accepting it is that the combination of the chordglut section and general inconsistencies makes this just miss the mark for CQ range, but I don’t mind giving this a CQ if the other judge believes that this is CQable. That said, I think this is better sent to a different batch. :p