Evidence I initially thought was too minor to include — and was wrong about

Had a small, local-scale recognition I almost left out entirely, assuming it was too minor to matter next to my stronger, more prominent pieces of evidence. Included it after some reconsideration, and I think it added more than I expected, in a supporting role. It wasn't strong enough to be load-bearing on its own, using the test another post here describes, but it did add to the overall texture and pattern of recognition my file was building — one more data point in a broader pattern, even though it wasn't individually dramatic. I presented it modestly, for what it actually was, rather than trying to inflate its importance. The lesson: genuinely minor evidence doesn't need to be excluded just because it's not individually impressive — it can still contribute to an overall pattern, as long as it's presented honestly for what it is and isn't asked to carry more evidentiary weight than it can actually bear.