EB-1A vs. NIW — how I actually decided, not just the theory

Read a lot of good explanations of the theoretical difference between EB-1A and NIW before I had to actually decide, and the theory didn't make the decision for me the way I expected it to — it took looking honestly at my own evidence to see which framework it actually fit. What tipped it for me toward NIW: my strongest material was really about a specific, ongoing initiative — not a stack of individual past achievements that cleanly mapped onto three of EB-1A's ten fixed criteria. I had good work, but it read more naturally as "here's an endeavor with national importance and here's why I'm positioned to advance it" than as "here are three discrete criteria I've clearly met." A test that helped me more than the abstract comparison: I tried writing out my case both ways — a rough EB-1A criteria mapping and a rough Dhanasar three-prong outline — before committing to either. The EB-1A version felt like I was stretching evidence to fit boxes it didn't quite fit. The NIW version felt like I was describing what I actually do. That gap between "stretching to fit" and "describing what's true" was more useful than any comparison chart, because it came from my own material instead of a generic description of the two categories.