So, you're saying they should create a separate award, if one doesn't exist, to distinguish between the two examples? Funny, that's exactly what they did with this award and everyone's up in arms. As a matter of fact, several have stated "why don't they just give them an MSM or LoM?", which would be a lot like Mendez and a Langley analyst getting the same award.

So, are you for or opposed to distinctly different awards recognizing distinctly different circumstances, but with equivalent impact to the mission?

Sidenote: I absolutely believe that value to a mission is tied to impact to a mission, and it is possible that what Mendez did doesn't even approach the implications on national security compared to what some analyst may have done. While Mendez's work was courageous, heroic, dangerous, etc; the implications of failure would be limited to just those involved (though it would be devastating to those individuals). When contributions are recognized, I go for effects instead of just appearance.