01:24:317 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - ehh this buildup feels kinda meh imo would personally opt for something more climatic here like streams or something. like considering right after this buildup you use a lot of spaced streams it feels appropriate to introduce that in the buildup as well imo
02:51:406 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - same thing here for the buildup if you think of it functionally these 1/4 sliders just feel like small 1/2 jumps kinda and tbh feels less intense that 02:49:627 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2) - imo. so like personally would suggest you make 02:51:406 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) - more intense, (especially relative to 02:49:627 (1,2,3,4,1,2,3,4,1,2) - imo) probably would have to change the rhythm imo
03:52:319 (3,4) - i guess this technically works with how you have clear spacing contrast between 03:52:319 (3,4) - and 03:52:541 (1,2) - but tbh since 03:52:319 (3,4) - and 03:52:541 (1,2) - feels pretty different in terms of intensity and rhythm i think it would feel a lot better to do some rhythm change like it would make 03:52:319 (3,4,1,2) - feel a lot less jarring than how it is rn imo. would suggest making 03:52:430 (4) - passive or just ignore that like have a gap or something
also this snapping here 03:52:097 (2) - sounds like hella off seems like the song is doing some 1/6 snapping on 03:52:097 (2) - or something so you might want to change the rhythm around a bit especially with reference to the first paragraph
03:56:541 (5,6,7,1,2,3,4) - rhythm feels kinda odd here feels like you should just make 03:56:429 (4,5,6) - into a reverse slider like 03:56:096 (3) - then actively map both of the strong piano sounds here 03:56:763 (7) - and here 03:56:985 - imo
also 03:56:985 - this is like hella tame imo like the song is doing doubles here so kinda lame to simplify this into 1/2 sliders with 1/4 gaps imo. should just embrace the doubles and actually map active doubles imo