Hi!

• Duplicated "0"="O" (we know this was valid in the wild, wild past - but we are in 2017, and things get always more precise, unless this pseudo-font is devoted to superficial visual tricks like almost all the 'micro' fontstructions, not to a more serious field of communication in basic Ascii at least).

• Incoherent spacing or width for "i", monospaced or not. See your uncommonly serifed "r" for a possible fix.

• Odd "J" and "j" (though "j" is coherent with "y" and "g"), but one can get used to this pair of casing.

• Unexpected "w" (common 'micro' "m" alike); besides a broken logic (of pairs like "M"/"m") in "W"/"w".

• Homogenous piece of font (as always: the more missing 'micro' characters, the more latitude in choosing and styling).

• Interesting use of text figures [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_figures] (where "4" might have been pushed below the baseline too?).

• Rounded lowercase (in general) and a few uppercase, where I enjoyed e.g. "g", "b", "Q" and "S".

• Almost all the possible or unnecessary stems are present ("F", "G", "J","P", "Q", "Y", "f"), adding relevantly to the (old) style.

• Coherent lower bars (horizontal strokes), as a choice (likely induced from the style of the numerics), i.e. at the middle of the matrix height (another balance).

• A little too big compared to the rest: "F", "E", "3".

• About eight glyphs with a darker type color from filling their apertures ("8" -plenty of alternates await you-, "M", "m", "W", "w", even "E", "4" -cool glyph other than that-, "B" - this is a visual defect, like a digital ink blot, listed in one of my files for the attention of the beginning 'micro' type designers). The rest of the type color is fairly even.

• In 'micro' typography, when you stick to an 'anti-minimalist' style (i.e. after adding unneeded pixels to a rigid outline), you end up inevitably with quite ambiguous glyphs, even with this relatively large matrix (pertaining to the valid glyphs as binary): e.g. I think you did not test "fs pxalic" extensively on "o"/"a", "c"/"e", "l"/"1", "i"/"l", "8"/"W", and many relatively ambiguous pairs ("p"/"P", "n"/"h", "v"/"V", "y"/"Y", "K"/R"or/"H") besides the more common ambiguities when casing (e.g. "n"/"N", "k"/"K").

• The size of your set of numerics equals the size of your sets of letters (uppercase and lowercase), which is prone to ambiguities (because the figures get swallowed up in this letter-oriented design), which may be unsafe in many less artistic fields of production (e.g. I am afraid that one human operator could not read quickly without error your nice numerics on computer-aided manufacturing interfaces, though I have to admit I cheated with the serifs in my own 'micro' fonts myself, for a better alignment especially).

No more tips; I have to stop commenting for now.

Bye!