The recent paper by Frӧmer et al (2024, Nature Human Behaviour) examines a component of the event-related potential (ERP) known as the centro-parietal positivity (CPP) that has been widely implicated in tracing the sensory evidence accumulation process underpinning perceptual decisions. Based on re-analysis of three pre-existing perceptual choice datasets, the authors claim that application of a deconvolution method designed to account for the overlap of stimulus- and response-aligned components, eliminates key signatures of evidence accumulation from the CPP measured in response-aligned average waveforms. From this the authors conclude that these apparent signatures were an artifact of component overlap and that the CPP may not trace evidence accumulation. Here, we argue that the analysis and interpretation of these perceptual choice data are critically flawed. First, we demonstrate with simple simulations that the deconvolution method used by the authors is categorically not designed to correctly capture evidence accumulation signals and, consequently, cannot reliably determine their presence or absence. Second, even within the parameters of their approach, we highlight that the results presented do not in fact support their claim that deconvolution eliminates evidence accumulation signatures from the CPP. Lastly, we list numerous signatures of evidence accumulation identified in the CPP in previous research, other than the response-aligned average waveform criteria on which the present work narrowly focused.