How I handled a criterion where my evidence was borderline

Had one criterion (judging) where my evidence was real but thin — two peer reviews, nothing more — and had to decide whether to include it as a fourth criterion or lean entirely on my three stronger ones. Sharing the reasoning that led me to include it, since this is a genuinely judgment-call situation without an obvious right answer. What tipped me toward including it: even thin evidence for a fourth criterion, if genuine, adds to the overall final-merits picture — it's another data point supporting sustained recognition, even if it's not individually as strong as my other three. The risk of including weak evidence is drawing attention to a weak spot; the benefit is a broader, more varied evidentiary base. What I did to mitigate the risk: I didn't oversell it. My personal statement described the judging activity accurately and modestly, rather than trying to inflate two peer reviews into something bigger than they were. A modest, honest presentation of a real but limited credit reads very differently than an overstated presentation of the same underlying facts.