This tends to result in a poor review. Oblique or confused response. The response does not actually address the standard. This is especially a problem with such standards as inquiry and nature of science. NOS is not the same as inquiry and is not the same as doing labs and projects, even open-ended ones.
Nothing is found in the supporting documents to support an assertion.
This is self-explanatory, but is a major time waster for reviewers. Without evidence, we cannot accept assertions. Partial submissions will be returned unread. The bullets in the standards represent the dimensions of the standard. In some standards, like the content standard, the bullets are distinct facets of the desired preparation, while in others, like the nature of science, they are more overlapping and less like a checklist.