What surprised me about the actual criteria, versus what I'd assumed before researching them

Before actually reading the regulatory text and real AAO decisions, I had a vaguer, more intimidating mental picture of what the ten criteria required than what they actually specify. Wanted to share this since I suspect the gap between assumption and reality is common. I'd assumed, for instance, that "leading or critical role" required something like a C-suite title at a famous company. Reading actual decisions showed a much more nuanced picture — the role's substance and the organization's genuine standing mattered more than a specific title or company fame. Similarly, I'd assumed "original contributions of major significance" required something field-transforming on the scale of a famous breakthrough, when in practice, a specific, well-documented, genuinely impactful contribution at a smaller scale could satisfy it. The broader lesson: doing the actual research — reading the regulation and real decisions, not just general secondhand impressions — corrected assumptions that had been making the whole thing feel more intimidating and less achievable than the actual standard, properly understood, turned out to be.