00:35:404 (3) - The blanket would look better if distance was fully consistent. Tweaking around, I get nodes on (295, 79), (315,129), and (301, 173) to get this configuration:
00:38:975 (5) - This curves slider feels a bit out of place when it's surrounded by straight sliders. I replaced it with a copy of (2) flipped 180 degrees and got what I felt was a visually nicer option.
01:06:832 (1,2) - Just a suggestion, but I think this sort of pattern looks a bit nicer:
01:20:404 (5) - Like my earlier suggestion, the straight slider feels a bit out of place when it's surrounded by curved sliders. Any reason to have this a different shape?
00:05:404 (3,4) - Definitely think these would look better if they were perfectly parallel.
00:39:332 (4,1,2,3) - It's a bit of trouble to do this, but I think making these objects form a parallelogram would make things look more organized: I was able to reorganize the objects that followed by just moving the second slider back:
00:36:118 (3) - Kinda prefer ctrl+j here. Most of your extended-slider patterns have glide-reflective symmetry as opposed to translational, so changing this would be consistent with the rest of the map's style.
00:39:332 (4) - Same comment here. I think they show up in other parts of the map, but I'll assume you know where to find them if you want to make the changes.
00:58:261 (1) - Slider shape could be more symmetrical. I have nodes placed at (164, 186), (231, 172), (229, 210), and (302, 191) which makes it look a bit nicer.
00:01:118 (1,2) - Don't really see a reason for why these should be different shapes. I'd make both of them straight sliders.
00:08:261 (1) - For distance consistency, I think this ought to be a bit closer to the slider that preceded it. 00:07:189 (2,3,4,5) had more appropriate distances between objects.
01:11:118 (1,2,3) - Why don't you have some pattern with 3-fold rotational symmetry here, like how you had it with the others? In the very least, I feel you should have the three finish sounds like you had with the others (which should continue throughout with the other difficulties you made--see the other comment on this on the easy difficulty that you probably already read).
00:13:201 (2,3,4,5,6) - I'm not really getting what 2, 4, and 6 are being mapped to. This is kind of a smoother section in the song; it doesn't need this jarring rhythm to make it harder.
00:21:832 - Why isn't there a circle here? There's a pretty dominant sound in the song.
00:45:404 (1,2,3) - The song doesn't transition into straight eighths here: the music just gets simplified. Keep the swing in these sliders. Alternatively, you can use circles on white ticks instead and remove any ambiguity.
00:01:832 (2,3) - This pattern is kinda cramped. I think I prefer a pattern like this: You can reroute the sliders that follow by ctrl+j ing 00:02:547 (1,2,3) and moving them around a little bit (symmetrically of course).
01:11:118 (1,2,1,2,1,2) - I don't know if you're the one I should bring this up to, but the 1's in this pattern I think should have finishes on them, since they have finishes in other similar parts of the chorus as well.
01:16:832 (1,2) - Why not make these glide reflective over the horizontal axis? (Make one slider ctrl+j from the other)
00:07:547 (1,1) - You may as well make this pattern symmetrical to the last one over the center y-axis. It's so close already.
00:05:404 (1,2,1,2) - Why do these have a different tapping pattern than 00:06:118 (1,2)? I prefer the latter pattern because this is a swinging song, which emphasizes the first and third beats in the triplet subdivision, so I would suggest changing 00:05:404 (1,2,1,2) so that it goes slider-circle-slider-circle instead.
00:53:142 (1) - IDK I kind of have a thing for curvier sliders so I think a shape like this would look nicer Obviously, if you make this change, be sure to curve 00:53:618 (2) with it.