What actually happened when I disclosed a gap in my own evidence, instead of hiding it

Had a two-year gap in my publication record (a career transition, nothing dramatic) that I initially worried about hiding or minimizing, and ended up doing the opposite — addressing it directly in my personal statement — which I think was the right call. Rather than letting the gap sit unexplained (where a reviewer might wonder about it or assume something negative), I included one brief, honest sentence explaining the transition and how it connected to my subsequent, stronger body of work. This wasn't an apology or an extended justification — just a clear, factual note that closed the gap in the narrative before a reviewer had to wonder about it themselves. I can't know for certain this specific choice mattered to my outcome, but the broader principle feels right regardless: an unexplained gap invites a reviewer's own speculation, which you have no control over, while a brief honest explanation puts the actual context in your own words instead.