Successful Mission (TV Size)

00:04:563 (8) - maybe move this to x:256 y:216, to avoid overlap with 00:03:200 (5,6)

00:06:836 (1,2,3,4) - I'd move them a bit further apart so they don't overlap with 00:08:200 (3)

00:11:609 (2) - Move this to the previous blue tick, i mean here 00:11:495... there's a sound to have more relevance than the actual position.
Also to be more consistent with spacing.

00:14:109 (1,2,3) - vs 00:14:791 (5,6) - you are making a lot of complex patterns where these 2, put together, would confuse very much since one is a triple and one is a double. You should make the triple a 3/4 reverse slider to compare different these two patterns

00:21:836 (2,3) - spacing is too long for a hard difficulty, you should be aware that you're mapping for a 3* and cooking these patterns with a close distance between one note and another it would be very missable. For find a compromise with this you could remove a reverse on them and make them like triple, so the spacing would make more sense

same as 01:23:654 (4,5,6) - 01:25:018 (1,2) - 01:25:927 (5,6,7) -

Personally this is fine 00:31:382 (1,2,3,4) - , but I believe that you can polish this pattern more mostly because you didn't use this types of overlaps in no other place.
While it's fine, it feels a bit out of place in the rest of the diff. Here's an alternative execution https://setogay.s-ul.eu/mURIrGrd

00:45:927 (1,2,3) - I don't think this is appropriate for Hard difficulty; the sliders for 1 and 2 would hide the circle for 3. It would be good to move the hit circle itself so that it is a bit more visible.
01:20:472 (5,6,7) - ^

00:58:882 (1) - 00:59:791 (1) - 01:00:700 (1) - etc The tick on the tail is pretty strong so you could map these sliders with 2 circles to represent that.

00:58:882 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - There is a distinct call-and-answer figure here where 00:58:882 (1,2,3) - is stronger than 00:59:791 (1,2,3) - . It would be cool if you could represent this by varying the spacing of these patterns.

00:59:791 (1,2,3,4) - 01:01:609 (1,2,3,4) - vs 00:58:882 (1,2,3,4) - 01:00:700 (1,2,3,4) - i would congratulate you for the idea, but these circles are still to close. Try to make sure they don't overlap with each other otherwise you cold make them similar to this spacing 00:49:563 (5,6,7) -

01:03:200 (1) - This spinner ignores a major vocal transition in 01:03:882 - and it's too undermapped. If you really want to keep the spinner idea, I'd recommend starting it in 01:03:882 - and mapping 01:03:200 - ~ 01:03:654 - activelly

01:06:609 (4,1) - I feel like stacking here is a bit underwhelming to play, would be great if you did a full loop and continued moving. This means to start the pattern at the position of 01:06:609 (4) instead

01:07:859 - There is a distinct vocal on this tick so it would be better if you'd map it.

01:09:109 (2,3,4,5) - no whistle here?

01:17:291 - You should probably keep the rhythm gap here 1/2 and map both as doubles 01:16:836 (4,5,6) - . The visual and spacing of 01:17:177 (6,1) - don't queue the player well enough to understand the 3/4 gap you did here.

01:20:472 (5,6) - these sliders could confuse the playbase since they are perfectly stacked tail/head. you might do something similar to this:

01:25:018 (1,2,3,4,5) - The grouping here needs a little bit of improvement. There's a major guitar change on 01:25:700 - that you're currently missing. There's a couple rhythm choices, I'll give you one example https://setogay.s-ul.eu/jXHAgJD3