Mendoza-Halliday, Major et al., 2024 ("The Paper")1 advocates a local field potential (LFP)-based approach to functional identification of cortical layers during "laminar" (simultaneous recordings from all cortical layers) multielectrode recordings in nonhuman primates (NHPs). The Paper describes a "ubiquitous spectrolaminar motif" in the primate neocortex: 1) 75-150 Hz power peaks in the supragranular layers, 2) 10-19 Hz power peaks in the infragranular layers and 3) the crossing point of their laminar power gradients identifies Layer 4 (L4). Identification of L4 is critical in general, but especially for The Paper as the "motif" discovery is couched within a framework whose central hypothesis is that gamma activity originates in the supragranular layers and reflects feedforward activity, while alpha-beta activity originates in the infragranular layers and reflects feedback activity. In an impressive scientific effort, The Paper analyzed laminar data from 14 cortical areas in 2 prior macaque studies and compared them to marmoset, mouse, and human data to further bolster the canonical nature of the motif. Identification of such canonical principles of brain operation is clearly a topic of broad scientific interest. Similarly, a reliable online method for L4 identification would be of broad scientific value for the rapidly increasing use of laminar recordings using numerous evolving technologies. Despite The Paper's strengths, and its potential for scientific impact, a series of concerns that are fundamental to the analysis and interpretation of laminar activity profile data in general, and local field potential (LFP) signals in particular, led us to question its conclusions. We thus evaluated the generality of The Paper's methods and findings using new sets of data comprised of stimulus-evoked laminar response profiles from primary and higher-order auditory cortices (A1 and belt cortex), and primary visual cortex (V1). The rationale for using these areas as a test bed for new methods is that their laminar anatomy and physiology have already been extensively characterized by prior studies, and there is general agreement across laboratories on key matters like L4 identification. Our analyses indicate that The Paper's findings do not generalize well to any of these cortical areas. In particular, we find The Paper's methods for L4 identification to be unreliable. Moreover, both methodological and statistical concerns, outlined below and in the supplement, question the stated prevalence of the motif in The Paper's published dataset. After summarizing our findings and related broader concerns, we briefly critique the evidence from biophysical modeling studies cited to support The Paper's conclusions. While our findings are at odds with the proposition of a ubiquitous spectrolaminar motif in the primate neocortex, The Paper already has, and will continue to spark debate and further experimentation. Hopefully this countervailing presentation will lead to robust collegial efforts to define optimal strategies for applying laminar recording methods in future studies.