vivo · 9.1.2

vivo proposes extending agreements from 1st priority cases to 2nd priority cases, specifically supporting sample-based channel measurements for Case 2b. They require reusing existing IEs for quality indicators, opposing the definition of new abstract IEs for label or channel measurement quality. vivo argues against mandating UTC time alongside SFN for Case 1, stating LMF implementation can resolve SFN wrapping ambiguity. They propose specific candidate sets for Nt' ({8, 16, 24}) and k ({0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5}) for sample-based reporting, and oppose transmitting offset from gNB to LMF when parameters differ from recommendations. vivo supports using phase information (RSCP/RSCPD) to enhance positioning accuracy and model monitoring, proposing methods like PRU-assisted calibration or relative phase referencing to mitigate transceiver initial phase impacts. They require supporting distance ranging for Cases 2a/3a and prioritizing functionality terminology discussions to align with RAN2.

vivo argues that sample-based measurements significantly outperform path-based measurements for AI/ML positioning, particularly in scenarios with limited TRPs or bandwidth, and proposes specifying sample-based reporting with defined parameters (Nt, Nt’, k). They prefer reusing existing IEs for quality indicators and assistance data to minimize specification overhead, while suggesting implicit indication via associated IDs for privacy-sensitive information. vivo supports the inclusion of phase information (RSCP/RSCPD) and distance ranging as model inputs/outputs to enhance accuracy. They emphasize the critical need for consistency between training and inference, proposing associated IDs to manage NW-side conditions like beam patterns and bandwidth alignment. Finally, they propose defining Case 1 as a new positioning method to facilitate proper assistance data handling and model monitoring procedures.