Chota and Van der Stigchel (this issue), Iamshchinina, Christophel, Gayet, and Rademaker (this issue), Lorenc and Sreenivasa (this issue), and Teng and Postle (this issue) each present a commentary regarding Xu (2020) where I conclude that sensory regions are nonessential for the storage of information in visual working memory (VWM). They argue instead that sensory regions are critical to VWM storage. Here I briefly reiterate some of the key evidence against this account, some of which has not been accounted by the four commentaries. I also provide a detailed reanalysis of why the main evidence supporting this account may be problematic. Collectively, existence evidence from human neuroimaging and TMS studies and that from monkey neurophysiology studies does not provide strong support for the sensory storage account of VWM. To form an accurate understanding of the distinctive role each brain region may play in perception and VWM as well as how they may interact to collectively support a VWM task, it is important that we properly survey and evaluate all the available evidence.