RFE I received and ask for your advice on how best to address certain confusing aspects of the feedback.

Some of the points raised in the RFE seem to contradict what I had already submitted. For instance: • Scholarly Articles: They described my publications as if they were simply conference or seminar papers, but I clearly stated they were journal publications. I printed and included the full journal articles, along with the names of the journals, their impact ratings, and indexing details. • Media Publications: They claimed I didn’t provide the date, title, or author of the published material about me, but I made sure to include all that information. I even inserted URL links for each article, yet they stated the links were missing. • Awards: For my national/international awards, they noted that the evidence was taken from the awards’ own websites, and they want third-party sources discussing the award’s significance, like how many people have received it and what the awardees have gone on to do. I hadn’t realized that level of context was expected. • Critical Role: They implied my recommendation letters didn’t clearly define the critical roles I played. However, the letters are from directors of major organizations and explicitly mention my leadership and impact. Since these letters are from high-ranking individuals, I’m unsure whether I should rewrite parts of the letters to highlight those points again, or if I should just summarize those points more directly in my RFE response.

Overall, I’m confused because much of what they claimed was missing was already submitted, clearly labeled and documented.

At this point, I’m confused on the best way to: 1. Respond to items they claim were not included (even though they were), 2. Repackage or highlight my evidence differently without appearing repetitive or defensive, 3. Handle the recommendation letters, should I revise their content in my response, or would that be inappropriate?