Orphaned evidence, name inconsistencies, and other things nobody's checking for you

Three quieter problems that don't come from any one criterion being weak, but still cost credibility if they're not caught: - Orphaned evidence — a document sits in the file (a reference letter, an exhibit) but nothing in the petition body actually references it or explains what claim it's supposed to support. If a piece of evidence isn't tied to a specific claim, a reviewer has no reason to connect the dots for you. - Name inconsistencies — your name appears one way on your passport, another way on an award certificate, and a third way in a reference letter. Usually harmless (nicknames, transliteration differences, maiden names), but worth a short note in the petition connecting the variants rather than leaving a reviewer to guess whether they're the same person. - Date or figure conflicts — a membership listed as "current" that actually expired according to its own documentation, or two exhibits describing the same event with different dates. These read as carelessness even when they're genuinely just an oversight, so they're worth a pass before filing. None of these are about the substance of your case. They're exactly the kind of check that's tedious to do by hand across a hundred-plus-page file and easy to automate — which is the whole premise behind having a deterministic, code-first audit layer instead of relying on a human (or an AI model) to catch them by reading closely.