A criterion I almost skipped because I didn't think my evidence was 'impressive enough'

Nearly left out my published-material evidence because, compared to some examples I'd seen referenced in this community (major national media coverage), my own coverage felt modest by comparison — a few solid pieces in respected industry publications, nothing that felt headline-grabbing. What changed my mind: a friend pointed out I was comparing my evidence to the most impressive examples I'd happened to read about, rather than to the actual regulatory standard, which doesn't require major national media — it requires professional or major trade publication coverage that's genuinely about you and your work, documented properly. My modest-feeling coverage actually met that standard perfectly well once I stopped measuring it against an unrepresentative, unusually strong example. The broader lesson, which echoes another post here about comparing your case to others': the standard is the regulation, not the most impressive example you happen to have seen. Solid, well-documented evidence that clearly meets the actual criterion is exactly what's being asked for — it doesn't need to be the most dramatic example anyone's ever posted about.