00:52:085 (2,1) - 00:52:559 (2,1) - Would say making them space larger would give better impact to 00:52:085 (2,2,2) -
00:53:506 (3,1,2,3) - This is kinda spikey with a spacing contrast into double rhythm patterning. Would say you could make 00:53:348 (2,3) - a slider so that it's not that spikey and also emphasizes 00:53:664 (1,2,3) - more.
00:53:822 (2,3) - 00:55:559 (1,2) - 01:00:137 (2,3) - Could probably unite the nc so it's easier to read as the rhythm is already really complex.
01:00:137 (2,3) - Could do similar spacing as 01:00:927 (2,3,4) - as they're both 1/4 and you only used bigger spacing when the second note is a slider.
01:06:137 (1,1,1,1) - this kinda confusing personally, it's a bit sudden and since the sliders look identical it's a bit hard to tell the rhythm. i think you could use a lower sv for the 1/4 sliders (maybe x1.5 multiplier)
same should be applied to 01:53:664 - 00:45:137 (1) -, using 1.5x sv max should work better not to make the diff too hard especially as the hard diff doesn't use too many sv changes
01:35:665 (1,2,3) - With slider leniency this just looks really weak for the three louder voices. Could move it further apart or buff it some other way to better fit the music.
01:37:559 (1,2,3) - 01:41:349 (1,2,3) - etc. This is kinda too much of a jump especially becuz you don't really have anything similar before + this pattern is just really spikey. Move it closer to each other pls.
01:37:559 (1,2,3,1) - What happened to the linear flow here? It's kinda emphasizing 01:38:033 (1) - a little too much. Consider nerfing it.
01:59:349 (1,2,3) - Awkward movement + large spacing makes 02:00:296 (1) - not really stand out. Consider changing the pattern to something like
so the grouping looks better.