00:05:325 (1,2,3) - would be nice to space this a tiny bit less since the melody is pretty low pitch here compared to 00:07:991 (1,2,3) -
00:11:158 (1,2,3,4,1,2) - vs 00:12:158 (1,2,1,2,3) - Would differentiate the movement between these as they are two different sets of synths with two different melodies, but you are using the same kind of jump/flow/rotation for both of them.
piano suits this better i think cos of 00:28:158 (4,5) and just more emphasis on piano this part
i kinda agree but i also think following piano is cool
up to you but maybe just making this 00:30:325 (2) - 2 circles would be fire
00:34:325 (3,4,1) - this is up to you but wouldnt it make a bit more sense to stack 34 and have 5 a little offset for the snare?
00:38:158 (2,3,4,5,1) - since you've been doing these offset stack bursts for stuff like 00:35:491 (1,2,3,4,1) - 00:36:825 (1,2,3,4,1) -
would be cool to do that here too and offset 00:38:491 (1) - as well
00:57:158 (1,2) - 01:02:491 (1,2) - 01:07:825 (1,2) - 01:13:158 (1,2) - It would be nice if you unstack these to better emphasize the snares and differentiate them from other stacks like:
01:07:158 (1,2,1,2,3,1,2,3,4,5,1) - Movement and spacing emphasis feels pretty weird here, not really following the vocal pitch changes and emphasizing strong sounds.
Would try something different, maybe we could work out some suggestions in DMs.
01:16:158 (3) - i think moving this somewhere around x:3 y:119 feels a lot better going into 01:16:325 (1,2,3) - just so cursor momentum stays high before the triple makes you stop moving
then you can adjust 01:15:825 (2) - a bit so it points to 3 if you want
01:17:825 (1,1,2,1,2,3,1,2,1,2,3) - I strongly recommend you reduce the spacing for this part to better contrast with the chorus section and 01:20:491 (1,2,1,2,1) - the next part.