[Technical] The CR proposes mapping “3DGS services” to pre-defined 5QIs but does not define concrete QoS requirements (PDB, PER, priority level, packet size/rate assumptions) per identified 3DGS flow in clause 6.X.2, so the mapping in clause 6.X.3 is not actionable or verifiable.

[Technical] Several cited 5QI examples appear incorrect or misleading versus TS 23.501 tables: e.g., “5QI 1-4 … buffered streaming” is not aligned with typical standardized service examples (buffered streaming is commonly associated with non-GBR 5QI 6/8/9), risking wrong conclusions for 3DGS traffic treatment.

[Technical] The CR mixes GBR, delay-critical GBR, and non-GBR 5QIs without stating which 3DGS flows are expected to require guaranteed bit rate versus non-GBR (e.g., static scene download vs pose/gaze uplink), which is fundamental to QoS Flow selection and admission control behavior.

[Technical] The identified flows in clause 6.X.2 overlap and are not mutually exclusive (e.g., “delivery of 3DGS media content” vs “dynamic or view-based 3DGS content”), making it unclear what traffic classification rules the UE/AF/SMF would apply.

[Technical] The CR does not address that 5QI selection in 5GS is typically driven by AF/PCF policy (TS 23.503) and QoS profiles, not by application-layer “recommendations” alone; the proposal should clarify whether it targets AF signaling (e.g., via NEF) or is purely informative.

[Technical] The recommendation “use existing 5QI values … as reference for determining appropriate 5QI values and QoS characteristics limits” is problematic because pre-defined 5QIs already have fixed standardized characteristics; if different limits are needed, the correct mechanism is a standardized new 5QI or a non-standardized QoS profile, which should be explicitly discussed.

[Technical] The CR suggests liaison “likely SA2” to define new 5QIs, but 5QI standardization and QoS characteristics are specified in SA2 (TS 23.501) with strong SA5/CT involvement for management/signaling impacts; the liaison scope and target groups are underspecified.

[Technical] No consideration is given to uplink pose/gaze/LOD traffic being small-packet, high-rate, jitter-sensitive control traffic; mapping it to generic “motion tracking” 5QI 88 without discussing jitter, periodicity, and reliability trade-offs may be technically unsound.

[Technical] The CR does not discuss whether 3DGS delivery is downlink-heavy eMBB-like (throughput-driven) versus interactive XR-like (latency/jitter-driven), yet it cites 5QI 80/89/90; without a traffic model, selecting among these is speculative.

[Editorial] The contribution claims a “comprehensive table” of relevant 5QIs but only lists selected ranges and examples; if clause 6.X.1 is intended to be normative study text, it should either reproduce the exact TS 23.501 entries with correct service examples or clearly state it is a non-exhaustive subset.

[Editorial] The document references “TS 23.501 clause 6.X.1” style content but does not provide exact TS 23.501 table numbers/versions; precise references are needed to avoid mismatches across releases and revisions.

[Editorial] Terminology is inconsistent: “3DGS services,” “3DGS media content,” “scene content,” and “view-based content” are used without definitions; TR 26.958 should define these terms or reference a definitions clause to prevent ambiguous interpretation.

[Editorial] The proposed clause numbering “6.X” is placeholder-like; for a CR it should include final clause numbers and indicate insertion points relative to existing TR 26.958 structure to ensure consistency with the document’s table of contents and cross-references.