How I actually decided which reference letter writers to prioritize when I had more willing writers than I needed

Ended up with more people willing to write letters than I actually needed or wanted to include, which was a nicer problem to have than the more commonly discussed one (struggling to find enough), but still required real decisions about who to actually ask. What I prioritized: specificity of what each person could speak to (did they have detailed, direct knowledge of a specific achievement, or would their letter necessarily be more general), independence and variety (not five letters all from the same organization or same narrow slice of my network), and standing in the field relevant to establishing the specific claims I needed supported. What I deliberately avoided: including every willing writer just because they offered, which risked diluting the file with letters that, however well-intentioned, didn't add much beyond what stronger letters already covered. A smaller number of well-chosen, specific, varied letters read as stronger than a larger number of more generic ones would have.