Judging the work of others: the difference between being asked and being on record

"Participation, either individually or on a panel, as a judge of the work of others in the same or an allied field" sounds broad, and in one sense it is — peer review, competition judging, thesis committees, and grant panels all count. Where petitions run into trouble isn't the definition, it's the documentation. Reviewing for a journal is real judging work. But if the only evidence in the file is "I have reviewed for [Journal]" with nothing behind it, that's a claim, not a record. What actually documents it: - The editor's invitation email, or an equivalent appointment record - Something showing the review was completed — a review confirmation, a submission receipt from the journal's system, correspondence acknowledging your report - If it's a panel (grant review, competition, thesis committee), the appointment letter and, ideally, something naming the panel's composition or scope One more distinction that matters: the judging has to be in the same or an allied field as your claimed expertise. A judging role that's real but unrelated to the field you're arguing extraordinary ability in doesn't do much work for this specific criterion, even though it's a genuinely evaluative role.