1: \begin{abstract}

2: 

3: Previously, we formally proved that any implementation of the concept of `copy number' underlying Assembly Theory (AT) and its assembly index (Ai) was equivalent to Shannon Entropy and not fundamentally or methodologically different from algorithms like ZIP and PNG via an LZ compressing grammar. We show that the weak empirical correlation between Ai and LZW, which the authors offered as a defence against the previously proven result that the assembly index calculation method is an LZ scheme, is based on a misleading experiment. When the experiment is conducted properly the asymptotic convergence to LZ compression and Shannon Entropy is evident, and aligns with the mathematical proof previously provided. This completes both the theoretical and empirical demonstrations that any variation of the copy-number concept underlying AT, which resorts to counting the number of repetitions to arrive at a measure for life, is equivalent to statistical compression and Shannon Entropy. We demonstrate that the authors' `we-are-better-because-we-are-worse' argument against compression does not withstand basic scrutiny, and that their primary empirical results separating organic from inorganic compounds have not only been previously reported---sans claims to unify physics and biology---but are also driven solely by molecular length, not by any special feature of life captured by their assembly index. Finally, we show that Ai is a special subcase of our Block Decomposition Method introduced almost a decade earlier.\\

4: \noindent \textbf{Keywords:} Biosignatures, Compression, Assembly Theory, Algorithmic Complexity, Shannon Entropy, LZ, LZW, Computability.

5: \end{abstract}

6: