Spreadtrum · 9.1.1

Spreadtrum opposes configuring only Set B for UE-side inference (Proposal 1) to prevent ambiguity in input-output correspondence between training and inference phases. They prefer reusing existing standard mechanisms, such as CRI/SSBRI for beam information (Proposal 2) and TCI indication frameworks for BM-Case 2 (Proposal 5), to minimize specification impact. For performance monitoring, they present a technical case against using probability information (Alt. 4) as a metric (Proposal 13), arguing it is unreliable and limited to classification models. They require the associated ID to be configured in CSI-ReportConfig (Proposal 11) and propose using it to ensure consistency between training and inference (Proposal 15). Additionally, they argue that implicit time reporting (Proposal 8) and adaptive beam selection (Proposal 10) are sufficient for BM-Case 2 without introducing new reference time definitions or fixed reporting structures.

Spreadtrum supports Option 1 or Option 2 for UE functionality determination, requiring the associated ID to be configured for both training and inference to guarantee consistency. They oppose configuring only Set B resources for UE-side inference and argue that larger quantization steps should not be considered for NW-side model inference. For BM-Case 2, they propose reusing the TCI indication framework and supporting implicit time reporting, while allowing adaptive selection of reported beam counts. They require the associated ID to be configured in CSI-ReportConfig and oppose Alt.4 for performance monitoring, instead supporting dedicated monitoring configurations and Option 1 for training-inference consistency.