Comment on "Exploring Data-Driven Corrections for $\phi$-Meson Global Spin Alignment Measurements" (arXiv:2508.18409)

The method in arXiv:2508.18409 constructs a ``data-driven correction'' from combinatorial (pseudo-$\phi$) pairs and applies it to the signal. An explicit decomposition shows that the construction calibrates the background response rather than the signal: it is defined by the difference between an acceptance-free pseudo-$\phi$ surrogate and its data-level realization. Promoting a background-derived correction to a signal correction requires a strong physics proof that signal and background share identical detector response at the pair level -- including acceptance-anisotropy couplings and dependencies on parent kinematics -- which the manuscript does not establish. Consequently, local numerical proximity in a restricted region of phase space is incidental rather than evidentiary; validation must rest on mechanism, not numerical coincidence. Moreover, the pseudo-$\phi$ background is non-unique: with infinitely many admissible constructions, any apparent agreement for a few cases would not be dispositive -- no finite scan can substitute for a mechanism-level response equivalence. In the absence of such a demonstrated equivalence, the construction should be regarded as a background calibration rather than a signal correction.