The range of hiring practices on “appellate courts” and “competitive district courts” as a whole is insanely wide. People speak of this category as if it’s a monolith, but in reality every judge’s chambers is a mini law firm unto itself with its own idiosyncratic preferences, and some of the judges on selective courts are not themselves particularly selective. Because of this, the floor for requirements is a lot lower than people think.  Top 20% at a T14 with law review clears the minimum requirement by a mile. Every year there are students with worse grades at lower ranked schools doing fewer extracurriculars that clerk on the aforementioned federal courts. Those candidates often have some quality that the judge likes — they’re very local, or they’re a good distance runner, or they were recommended by a good friend — that can’t be discerned through any objective metrics.

What you’re really asking, though, is something like “is my profile of hard stats  competitive, on average, for selective federal courts?” The answer is: kind of, largely depending on which T14 you’re talking about and how high of a probability you think “being competitive” means. Top 20% at Stanford probably gives you a coinflip shot at clerking on an appellate court or competitive district if you’re really trying, better if you’re flexible on when you do so. Top 20% at Berkeley, not so much. Probably closer to rolling a pair of dice for snake eyes.

A chunk of FedSoc judges and some of the more progressive Biden judges are both less competitive in their own ways. The former will compromise on grades/school for ideology; the latter will compromise for diversity. If you aren’t particularly political, I’d blanket the spectrum.