## 5 Conclusions  
The SHF-WS-based approach, in combination with the SF model and the TALYS 1.96 simulation framework, yields angular differential cross sections that align closely with experimental observations. Although the global Koning and Delaroche model offers slightly better average agreement across all energies, the SHF-WS model matches or exceeds it in specific cases. These results suggest that the SHF-WS method constitutes a promising and physically grounded alternative, particularly for detailed studies of nuclear structure and scattering in heavy deformed nuclei. By incorporating nucleon densities derived from microscopic principles and realistic folding potentials, this model can serve as a complementary tool alongside traditional OM approaches. Future work may focus on further improving backward-angle accuracy by including spin-orbit interactions and coupling effects. For a more detailed structural analysis, the observed deviations in terms of shell model effects, spin-parity configurations, and collective motions in specific isotopes are discussed below. Additionally, this model employs the \(a_{v}\) and \(r_{v}\) parameters developed in the 2003 study by [PERSON] and [PERSON]. The rationale behind these choices can be explained as follows:From the shell model perspective, the energy levels, spin-parity configurations, and pairing properties of these isotopes differ. These differences directly influence the scattering cross sections and resonance behavior. The OM represents these variations in an averaged manner, which can sometimes lead to deviations in the model predictions. Although the global nucleon OMP developed by [PERSON] and [PERSON] in [43] is applicable over a wide range of energies and mass numbers, it exhibits discrepancies with experimental data for certain target nuclei and energy regions. One significant reason for these deviations is that the model does not explicitly account for the microscopic structure of the nucleus, particularly its shell structure. A major part of the discrepancies in [PERSON]'s global OM arises from its inconsistency with the shell model. While the shell model posits that nucleons occupy discrete energy levels that directly influence scattering behavior, the OM represents this interaction as an average potential. This approximation leads to pronounced deviations in the model, especially in cases involving:  
* Nuclei near shell closures,
* Resonance structures,
* Spin-parity dependent transitions. As explained by the shell model, each isotope possesses a unique energy level structure, spin-parity distribution, and collective behaviors, whereas the global OMP represents these features in an averaged, parametric manner. This leads to an inability to fully capture:  
* Spin effects in single nuclei such as \({}^{183}\)W,
* Collective vibrations in open-shell nuclei like \({}^{182,184}\)W,
* Resonance damping in more rigid nuclei such as \({}^{186}\)W.  
1. The goal of the global model is broad applicability across wide mass (A) and energy (E) ranges. 2. Since the shell structure differs for each isotope, a separate parameterization would be required for each. 3. Such a detailed approach would compromise the \"global\" nature of the model. Therefore:
* The model attempts to represent shell effects by incorporating variations within its parameters. * However, this approach is insufficient to explain abrupt structural changes around, for example, magic numbers. Reasons for deviations (due to differences between OMP and shell model):  
* Example of \({}^{183}\)W (single neutron)
* The \({}^{183}\)W isotope contains a single neutron, so the spin-orbit splitting affects the angular distribution of scattering. * Shell model: The placement of this neutron in a specific orbital (e.g., 2f/2) creates resonances during scattering. * OMP: The spin-orbit potential is fixed, and individual orbitals are not considered deviations occur at large angles.