and B in Table \[pikfit\], correspond to almost the same $(\rho_A^i, \phi_A^i)$ $\approx$ $(2.8,-108^{\circ})$. The large errors on parameter $(\rho_A^i, \phi_A^i)$ are mainly caused by the current loose experimental constraints on $CP$ asymmetries measurements for $B$ ${\to}$ ${\pi}K$, $K \bar{K}$ decays. In principle, the pure annihilation $\bar{B}^0 \to K^- K^+$ decays whose amplitudes depend predominantly on $(\rho_A^i, \phi_A^i)$, besides the decays constants, should give rigorous constraint on $X_A^i$. It’s a pity that the available measurement accuracy on its branching ratio is too poor to efficiently confine $(\rho_A^i, \phi_A^i)$ to some tiny spaces. The large $(\rho_A^i,\phi_A^i)$ mean large $X_A^i$ and $X_H$, i.e., there must exist large nonfactorizable annihilation and spectator scattering contributions to accommodate the current measurements. Our fit results on parameter $\rho_A^i$ provide a robust evidence to the educated guesswrok about $\rho_{Ad}^i$ $=$ 2.5 in Ref.[@zhu2]. In fact, the strong phase $\phi_A^i$ educed from measurements of branching ratios for $B^0$ $\to$ $K \bar{K}$ decays in Ref.[@zhu2] can have either positive or negative values with the magnitudes of $\gtrsim$ $100^{\circ}$ (see Fig.5 of Ref.[@zhu2]), where the positive value $\phi_A^i$ $=$ $+100^{\circ}$ used in Ref.[@zhu2] will be excluded by our fit with much more experimental data on $B$ ${\to}$ $\pi K$, $K 