[Technical] The proposed Clause 6.3 text is largely qualitative and does not resolve the editor’s note intent (“scene complexity impacts on feasibility”) because it provides no measurable complexity metrics (e.g., Gaussian count ranges, per-Gaussian attribute sizes, update rates, target FPS/resolution) or any method to map “complexity drivers” to UE capability classes.

[Technical] “Number of Gaussians” is cited as a primary driver, but the contribution does not distinguish between active/visible Gaussians per frame vs total stored Gaussians, nor does it account for view-dependent culling/LOD—key to actual mobile rendering and decoding complexity.

[Technical] The “tracked / partially tracked / untracked” categorization is underspecified and risks being non-actionable: it does not define what constitutes an association (ID persistence? correspondence confidence? motion model?) or how partial tracking is signaled/quantified, making it hard to use consistently elsewhere in TR 26.958.

[Technical] Compression statements (e.g., “requires more frequent keyframes”, “reduces benefits of temporal prediction”) are plausible but incomplete without identifying which coding tools/architectures are assumed (e.g., inter-frame prediction of attributes, topology delta coding, entropy coding), so the conclusions may not generalize across candidate dynamic 3DGS codecs.

[Technical] The text implies decoding complexity scales with “intrinsic complexity and temporal variability” but does not separate encoder-side complexity (tracking, correspondence, optimization) from decoder-side complexity (parsing, reconstruction, rendering), which is critical for UE feasibility discussions in S4.

[Technical] “Magnitude of motion” and “topology changes” are listed as drivers, but there is no proposal for how to measure them (e.g., per-Gaussian displacement statistics, birth/death rates, attribute change rates), leaving the clause unable to support later normative requirements or comparative evaluations.

[Technical] The contribution discusses “session duration” constraints without clarifying whether this is due to thermal throttling, battery drain, memory pressure, or network bitrate; without tying to specific resource models, the statement is too vague to guide TR conclusions.

[Technical] The claim that original INRIA 3DGS has “frame-independent Gaussian attributes” and “static topology assumption” is not carefully framed for dynamic extensions—readers may interpret it as a spec limitation rather than a property of a particular academic method; this needs clearer scoping to avoid misleading conclusions about what 3GPP could standardize.

[Technical] The proposal introduces multiple FFS items (max scene complexity per UE category; comparison of tracked formats; coexistence of formats) but does not propose any evaluation plan, test conditions, or reporting parameters, which weakens its usefulness as TR text intended to close an editor’s note.

[Editorial] The contribution references “Clause 6.3 (Complexity) currently empty” but does not provide the exact draft text with placement, numbering (e.g., 6.3.1/6.3.X), or integration points with existing clauses/terminology in TR 26.958, increasing editor burden and risk of inconsistency.

[Editorial] Several terms are introduced without alignment to 3GPP style/definitions (e.g., “topology changes” for Gaussian sets, “temporal association”, “intrinsic complexity”), and should either be defined in a definitions clause or rephrased to match existing TR vocabulary.

[Editorial] The summary cites references [1]-[4] but does not indicate how they map to the proposed categories or complexity claims; the clause should explicitly tie each key assertion to a reference or mark it as an observation to avoid appearing unsubstantiated.