Comparable evidence: what it actually means when none of the ten fit well

Spent a while confused about "comparable evidence" before I understood it's a narrow allowance, not a general escape hatch — worth being precise about what it actually does and doesn't cover. The regulation allows comparable evidence when the standard criteria "do not readily apply" to a given occupation. This is genuinely about occupational fit, not about a petitioner simply preferring not to use the standard criteria because their own evidence for those doesn't look strong. If your field has clear equivalents to the ten criteria (most do, even if imperfectly), comparable evidence isn't really the right path — you use the standard criteria, even if imperfectly fitting. Where it does apply: fields with genuinely different professional conventions where, say, "scholarly articles" or "judging" doesn't have a natural analog. Even then, the comparable evidence still has to demonstrate the same underlying thing the standard criterion would — recognition, contribution, or standing at a comparable level — it's not a lower bar, just a different door into the same room.