00:08:025 (1) - from here up until 00:18:740 (1) - should HEAVILY be considered for remapping. I say this because this part is extremely quiet in the music yet you have HUGE spacing like 00:08:025 (1,2) -. From (2) to (3) is slightly more acceptable because of pitch change but from 1 to 2 is pretty harsh for quiet section. The SV is changed to .90 but that isn't so much different than 1.0 so try to use something like .70
00:09:343 (1,2) - From a structural standpoint, this is pretty lame. You have one overlap and come back down to another overlap and you've exhausted this general area already and neglected a lot of the playfield. The next 3 seconds where you've mapped it further proves this.
00:11:486 (6,7,1) - The flow on this is very sharp when it really shouldn't be. The spacing as I've mentioned before is really high x-x
00:11:816 (1,2) - These are spaced as if they would be 1/4 apart but yet they are 1/2 apart on timeline.
00:13:299 (1,2) - This is proper. Regardless, this quiet section shouldn't be so intense.
00:17:915 (3) - You could have this be a slower extended slider just so that you can get that downbeat click. Especially in a transition, you WANT that clickable downbeat (in general you want clickable downbeats but this you REALLY want lol).
00:18:740 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1,2,3,4,5,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1,2,3,1,2,3,4) - I really don't like how these 6 seconds all are mapped to the top right area of the playfield. Only using a small portion of the playfield limits mapping creativity such as patterning, structure, differentiating spacing, etc. Try not to get so focused here.
00:22:365 (1) - Need to click downbeat
00:24:838 (1) - If you want this vocal, just extend it to the blue tick (with a muted end) and have another slider or circle be on the downbeat
00:25:827 (6,8,1) - lots of heavy overlapping here doesn't appeal so well. Either space things out more or use some sort of blanketing techniques to keep spacing minimal while not touching everything .
00:27:805 (1,2,3,4) - It'd be really cool if you increased the SV on this to grow more. So from .7 to .8 to .9 and 1.0
00:29:948 (5,6,1) - Overlapping plays and looks a little odd tbh
00:34:398 (6,1) - The 6 should be the long slider and NC'd because downbeats bruh. There's a drum sound inside your (1) slider that gets neglected so, that's not good
00:44:288 (3) - not really liking that overlap
00:51:541 (1,2,3,4) - The sudden shift in direction is kind of uneasy. I would rather see the jumps "build up" in intensity as it continues. It was looking okay at first, but then this comes out of nowhere and sort of ruins the flowiness of the jumps.
01:29:782 (1) - I think it'd be cool to have antijump aesthetics for this star jumpy part
02:00:113 (1) - oo cute
I think the main concern for this diff is the intro intensity to be lowered down severely and the usage of your overlaps are a little more jarring than they should be. Heavy overlaps don't look so well unless the music really calls for it (usually in wubby songs). Another thing I didn't really mention was your extended sliders don't have muted ends so consider doing that to them. Patterning and structure isn't so evident but I think that's due to the fact that your playfield usage looks like this:
https://osu.ppy.sh/ss/4457001 Lots of uncovered spots and mostly everything is in that top right sections ><