Hey Unnati, I agree with the feedback you've given yourself. Major revision on the the flow is needed. I recommend using the template sent just now. Especially for scholarly articles, I also miss a lot of concrete content such as analysis which journal it was published in, when, citations, ranking, the kind of research . For example, in a previously approved petition, the scholarly articles criterion included the following subsections: • Total number of publications, including Google Scholar metrics and overall references to the applicant's work. • Information about the journals where the applicant published, including evidence demonstrating that these journals are among the leading publications in the field. • Independent confirmation from professors or experts (where applicable) establishing that the applicant plays a significant role in the field of research. • Citation analysis, including total citations, comparisons showing the applicant is cited substantially more than peers, and ESI rankings where available. • Evidence of judging or reviewing scholarly work related to the applicant's publications (optional, if applicable). Then also a lot of feedback I've given you previously was not yet incooporated. that is for instance • Making assumptions without any backing and generalizations without sources like for instance: Enterprise architecture serves as the strategic framework through which or- ganizations align business objectives with technology capabilities. • No exhibits yet (though I believe that's work in progress) • I also recommend letting the evidence speak more. Throughout the petition, phrases like _T_he evidence establishes, the record demonstrates, The documentary evidence supporting this contribution includes, and so on. • As for LOR's you mention them sometimes, but you do not specifically mention the exact quote. Kritika has done this very well in one of her petitions. I recommend checking that as well. Slack conversation