The article is well-structured, and the technique and results are thoroughly explained. However, there are a few important comments:

1. At what depths was in-situ data used to confirm soil freezing beyond 5 cm? Freezing to a depth of 5 cm is a significant criterion for some agricultural activities, but it is insufficient for the majority of hydrological and ecological tasks, particularly in the context of climate change.

2. How do the authors incorporate data on permafrost distribution into the FT product, both in extended areas and mountainous regions? How do authors account for geographical and temporal variations in permafrost indicators between 2002 and 2023?

3 The authors do not provide a convincing number of point verifications of the FT product in various physiographic conditions using statistical techniques. In addition, a comparison of soil freezing depth inaccuracies in various natural zones is required.

4. Can you explain the lack of freeze-thaw data at 0.25º resolution in Fig. 4?

This study aims to improve the spatial resolution of FT detection products without sacrificing accuracy, using passive microwave-based FT data from AMSR-E/2 TB through the DFA. Downscaling indicators, such as MODIS-based LST and ATI, are used to integrate soil moisture information. The downscaled FT records were validated with in-situ soil temperatures, assessing accuracy changes post-downscaling. Trend analyses of the high-resolution FT records capture detailed dynamics, meeting the growing spatial and temporal resolution needs of GCOS for FT monitoring. This study provides valuable FT data for enhancing cryospheric and ecological research, offering an important resource for future studies. The study is well written and the methods used are rigorous. I recommend a minor revision to address some of my comments.