Recently, Xu and Zhou [2023] introduced a constructive approach for exploring computational hardness, proving that SAT requires exhaustive search. In light of certain misinterpretations concerning the contributions and proofs in that paper, we focus on providing detailed explanations in this work. We begin by delineating the core innovation of the constructive approach, shedding light on the pivotal concept of algorithm designability. We address the overlooked white-box diagonalization method and highlight the concept of an almost independent solution space. In response to specific misunderstandings, such as the concerns surrounding the assumptions of Lemma 3.1, we offer comprehensive clarifications aimed at improving the comprehension of the proof. We are grateful for the feedback received on our prior paper and hope this work can foster a more well-informed discussion.