Hey Unnati a couple of things. 1. Like mentioned when we had the meeting with Aditi about Abhishek's petition, please state the exact exhibits in text rather than a subchapter with supporting evidences 2. For memberships, the actual websites (sources) and exact criteria for said memberships are not present, when he got it, how he managed to meet said criteria. You mentioned on call this is mentioned but this is not there. 3. For scholarly articles, our Rizwan's template has not been used. Please review because essential information is missing like • conference acceptance rates, • journal rankings, • citation counts (I did see the chapter but then no data was mentioned) • Google Scholar metrics. 4. For original contributions: • What exactly did he create? • Why was it different from existing practice? • How was it implemented? • Why did it matter to the industry or organization? That's currently missing. I know you'll need those statistics for that so let's send this e-mail today to him that we need the evidences or else he risks an RFE. Maybe his employer might be willing to give it. Although even without that, the above questions still need to be answered 5. For peer-reviewing, please remember the feedback for Abhishek bear that we discussed. A table of the peer-reviews is needed for each journal he peer-reviewed for. Also describe how he got to be a reviewer. 6.. Critical role is decent. To strengthen it, please add a section where we speak about why someone else couldn't simply have performed the same role. 7. I still noticed some places where the petition refers generally to: • "the recommendation letters," • "the documentary evidence," • "the evidence demonstrates." Like we spoke about, and this mistake should not happen again and again, please cite the LOR and recommender specifically in the portions you're using it for. Overall nice and concise, with these improvements we should be able to improve it massively. @Unnati Feedback for Jitendra