This is the way.

there is no reward weight based on the cbrs radio type, like "high power outdoor" AFAIK.
So the "Changes to Templated Coverage Points" should be removed, right? the "examples" section is still valid without this "Changes to Templated Coverage Points" section.

I believe the model predicting the change is pretty accurate.
We have exported the boosted coverage points for the all network considering overlapping coverage.
CBRS share of the coverage points go to 29.40% from 80.53%

Data and the analysis can be found at this sheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MXXq0AxOj-kV6SlGJN2dLwAhR0eYCGvRDwMDTEABE9I
It allows you to change the proposed parameters and see the result too

there is no reward weight based on the cbrs radio type, like "high power outdoor" AFAIK. So the "Changes to Templated Coverage Points" should be removed, right? the "examples" section is still valid without this "Changes to Templated Coverage Points" section.

That's a good question, and I'm not sure of the answer. I believe I heard someone from Nova mention that Templated Rewards were being used in Mexico due to missing obstruction data, but I don't know if that is still the case, or ever was really. Maybe @madninja could chime in.

Upon further investigation, it seems like "Templated Coverage" for coverage in MX became an overloaded term starting in HIP 93.

The new term refers to a static template for Modeled Coverage for outdoor radio signal propagation in absence of obstruction data.

The old term referred to the now-obsolete rewards multipliers that exist before Modeled Coverage, so I've removed the Templated Coverage changes from this HIP.

updated the data for Feb29 epoch: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1R6y9R2B9Ljan4Spqf0k33ubaufbRTgX_k2FHNJAZhww

Lots of quick updates here. @rawrmaan do you believe this is ready to land for a full discussion?

I believe so. I don't have any outstanding feedback points from anyone that I'm aware of.