I 100% agree that no 2 claims are ever alike and I'm not going to say my records were spot on either. I initially filed upon retirement in May 2017, asked for reconsideration in November (led to several exams), filed a supplemental in March 2019, then filed an HLR in July 2019. I just was able to point out specific dates where the reviewer said I had no evidence. The other issues I had 3 exams for - if you want to call them exams - I spoke with a Dr but never physically examined me. So that was the Dr error and why they asked for a new exam that required a full exam.
One issue got increased to the full amount allowed for it (migraines).
In my personal opinion it was the best option for me (the HLR) because I could point out areas where there was evidence and even in the past exams what I had stated the issues. And if it comes back negative, I can always go back and do the supplemental with letters from my current Dr and buddy statements. But if I know something had been overlooked in my records, I would go the HLR route and ask for the informal conference so you can point out those dates to the reviewer.
Even if they deny the issues that I had the exams for, I do not regret taking the HLR route.