00:05:414 - 00:07:875 - both bass sound but represented differently

in general i think my principle would be to not heavily layer the beginning part of this song since
a) no background bass track at all!! usually it makes the song muted as hell which doesnt necessarily translate well with heavy action
b) makes it harder to compensate: im very particular about layering in general and when u represent sounds like 00:08:491 - similarly with sounds like 00:22:337 - it kind of throws me for a loop

00:06:183 - 00:06:491 - 00:06:798 - dk why you missed these, i can hear them clearly
00:08:644 - same deal as above but less so i guess

00:08:798 (8798|0,8798|1) - no percussion
00:08:798 (8798|0,8798|1,8952|3,8952|2,9106|1,9260|2,9260|3,9414|0,9414|1,9567|1,9644|0,9721|2,9721|3) - actually idk how you layered the doubles here and in this entire section in general. might want to revise


00:10:337 (10337|3,10337|0) - not sure if this was intentional but i get what you were doing here - opening with open chord [14] cause music also changes etc.


00:22:337 - 00:42:337 - few things
a) i feel like u couldve done more with chord allocation, i.e. bass kick = [12] OR [34] and snare = everything else so the section has more structure
b) inconsistencies 00:29:875 - 00:30:029 (30029|0,30029|3) - etc. idk im lazy
c) compromise - since this section has some piano going on i think you need to set your priorities when it comes to emphasis, or else things like 00:31:721, 00:32:337 (32337|1,32414|2) -  would pass off as a cop-out (i.e., you tried to bite off too much you could chew out of the song and you ended up cutting out things arbitrarily).
d) density - if you do decide to make the section fairly dense you must make sure sounds get differentiated still, e.g. it'd be silly to argue that 00:26:491 (26491|2,26491|1,26567|0,26644|3,26644|2) and 00:30:952 (30952|1,30952|0,31029|2,31106|0,31106|1) - sound the same, even though they're mapped the same (refer to 00:32:337 (32337|1,32414|2,32491|3,32491|0) - for a even better example of argument)


00:54:644 - 01:04:491 - nice

01:04:491 (64491|0,69414|0) - diff pitch

01:14:797 (74797|1) - pretty sure this shouldnt be mapped; listen to more dissonant piano

01:23:567 - ln? idk


01:24:183 - 01:43:875 - few things as well
a) really dk what the triple goes to, u have things like 01:29:105 (89105|1,89105|0,89105|3) - vs. 01:29:874 (89874|0,89874|2,89874|3)
b) piano in some parts are reallllllly quiet, e.g. at the start of 01:28:029 -
c) can see what you're trying to do with the piano pitches but the entire thing is masked by the density of the section so you may want to reevaluate how u approach the piano thing
d) 01:39:182 (99182|0,99259|0) - please; 01:38:952 - feel like they should all go right to left anw since its a glissando
e) not sure what you're doing at the end, sometimes you jumptrill the beats 01:41:566 (101566|3,101566|0,101643|2,101643|1,101720|0,101720|3) - but sometimes you don't 01:42:028 (102028|2,102028|1,102105|0,102182|3,102182|2). refer back to my point on priorities and compromise in mapping.

general:
its okay since i judged it with higher expectations and i can defs see what youre doing sometimes, but u seem to struggle with prioritizing the elements u wanna represent in the song (not so much with translating them into actual patterns to play).