00:02:282 (8) - the spacing between this note and the last one is very high but the loud drum sound is actually on the next note, so you can make the spacing between (7) and (8) smaller and the spacing between (8) and the next (1) higher so the high spacing is on the loud drum note
00:07:832 (6) - Don't recommend having short sliders like these having anchor points anywhere other the middle, bc it just doesn't look as good.
Having the anchor in the middle like this one 00:09:332 (8), it'd look a lot neater and more presentable.
00:09:632 (1,2,3,4,5) - u map this with sharp angled jumps for the rest of the section so why not here
00:09:632 (1,2,3,4) - These wide angle jumps feel really inconsistent to the rest of this section, where all other similar parts are mapped using sharp angles, whereas this is mapping using wide angle jumps, with no reasoning behind this inconsistency.
I suggest just using sharp angles for these too
00:22:832 (1) - how about deleting this circle. there is clearly a 'stop' on the song. the focus you give should be simplified on the strong string instruments 00:22:682 - 00:22:982 - . it also gives a quite nice anti jumps imo
00:39:632 (1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1) - this is mapped with kicksliders but 00:42:032 (1,2,1,2,1,2,3,4) - here it isnt and it sounds basically the same
00:39:932 (1,1,1) - the idea of 1-2 ing combo here doesnt really support whats the song is doing. the song's structre is doing a loud bass sound every two white ticks here 00:39:632 - 00:40:232 - 00:40:832 -that suggesting for 1234 for comboing instead of 1-2. so the nc-ing should be focus on that loud basses. i suggest you to just delete 00:39:932 (1,1,1) - those ncs because you dont really need them
00:42:332 (1) - same here unnecessary nc. the other parts like this 00:42:632 (1,2,3,4) - and 00:43:232 (1,2,3,4) - are doing 1234 combos on jumps, which is more ideal and following the song appropriately
00:58:832 (1,2,3,4) - maybe reduce the spacing on (1) and (2), because it's relatively larger than (3) and (4) since it's not big of a difference in terms of sound.
01:30:032 (1,2,3,4) - i dont get this weird stack. you can definately emphasize 3 & 4 because they have a higher pitch comparing to 1 & 2 which is more passive. how about stacking 1 and 2 and creating a jumps on 3 and 4. here is my pattern suggestion https://europe.s-ul.eu/Unu9bz5V
01:32:132 (4) - this really high gap from (4) to (5) seems out of place because theres nothing in the song that calls for it and the rest of the section doesnt have this high spacing so you can lower the spacing
02:00:482 (2,1) - too close, i don't know if it's intended to be this close, since you're consistently made it this close, then it's okay
02:03:632 (1,2,3,4) - Poor rhythm choice here. You were focusing on these "ding" sounds in this whole section 02:00:032 (1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3) - then suddenly changed to focus on the not as important sounds in the background, where ideally you should keep mapping the dings.
This is a lot better imo -> https://hypercyte.s-ul.eu/GVcaVG8K
02:04:232 - i think that this sound is clickable. the ending of the calmer part would be more dramatic if it was a two circle stacked rather than 1 circle only. its a nice transtition between the calmer part and the part where the loud basses kick in again on 02:04:832 -. maybe this instead? https://europe.s-ul.eu/S2EfVJuT
02:06:182 (2,3) - i can see what you're doing with the stacks but i feel like you should space these sounds to emphasize the last sound which stands out the most