Huawei

9.1.2 shifted

Huawei shifted their argument against phase information, now citing that double phase difference cannot mitigate phase errors in NLOS scenarios and that timing/power suffices. They added a new technical case against the associated ID for TRP location consistency, arguing that TRP locations change infrequently and UE-side burden from combinatorial model training would be excessive. They preserved their stance on reusing legacy IEs for LOS/NLOS indicators and added a proposal to distinguish Rel-19 timing information via timing quality indicators or a specific Rel-19 type indicator.

9.1.3 shifted

Huawei preserved its core argument against network-side associated IDs but refined its monitoring proposal by adding specific priority rules where monitoring reports take precedence over inference reports. They added new technical requirements for separating CPU counting between legacy and AI/ML CSI reporting and advocating for L1 signaling for monitoring results to address latency. The position shifted from general feasibility arguments to specific signaling layer (L1) and resource management (CPU separation) proposals.

9.1.1 strengthened

Huawei shifted from a conservative approach emphasizing reuse of existing frameworks to a more aggressive stance pushing for significant enhancements and expanded capabilities.

9.1.2 strengthened

Huawei strengthened their position by expanding opposition from general complex signaling to specifically opposing tight specification of sample-based measurements and mandatory phase information.

9.1.4.1 strengthened

Huawei maintained their support for Direction A but strengthened their position by specifically favoring Option 4-1 and adding strong opposition to Direction C based on practical implementation concerns.

9.1.4.2 strengthened

Huawei expanded their opposition to cross-vendor collaboration from just Case z1 to Cases z1, z2, z3, and z5, taking a stronger stance against complexity.