Hey Unnati. As supplementary comments Right now, each "Leading Role" section starts discussing achievements: • managed $32M • AI initiatives • stakeholder engagement • digital transformation Then the "Organizational Impact" section discusses... • managed $32M • AI initiatives • stakeholder engagement • digital transformation So the officer reads essentially the same story twice. The "Leading Role" section should explain what his position was and why it was a senior/important role, while the "Organizational Impact" section should focus only on what he achieved in that role and the measurable results. This will reduce repetition and make the argument easier to follow. It's not about how much is written but about evidences we have for him meeting the criteria • Currently a lot of assumptions are made without any proper backing with sources. This is in context of descriptions of processes, companies, roles and responsibilities, • We need context for many claims, for instance his portfolio, is he the only one with this big of a portfolio, we need to know the company's hierarchyThe petition often says claims like "developed innovative framework" or "introduced enterprise methodology" or "pioneered AI strategy" but we don't have any information on these achievements. Slack conversation