Judging work and original contributions often reinforce each other — build them together

Didn't plan this deliberately at first, but noticed in retrospect that my judging activity and my original-contributions evidence ended up strengthening each other, and I think that's worth doing on purpose rather than by accident. Being invited to review or judge work in a specific area is itself a form of field recognition — it signals that others see you as qualified to evaluate that kind of work. And the original contribution you're arguing is more credible when the file also shows the field treats you as someone qualified to judge work in that same area. They're not the same evidence, but they support the same underlying claim: that you're recognized as having real standing in this specific area, not just general competence. Practically, this meant when I was deciding which judging or review opportunities to prioritize among several options, I leaned toward ones closely aligned with the specific technical area my original contribution was in, rather than a more general or unrelated opportunity — even though the unrelated one would have technically also counted under "judging the work of others."