Cheat sheet
Inside one plenary: TSG SA#112
Singapore, June 2026, in under an hour
- Depth
- Quick start
- Chapters
- 4
- Reading
- 15 min
- Questions
- 16
- Sources cited
- 74
The shape of it
1 A week in one room
- 1 What happens when a few hundred engineers meet for a week
- 2 What came out of this one, in the plainest numbers
2 Reading it yourself
Keep these in your head
-
1.3 What happens when a few hundred engineers meet for a week
A plenary does not write standards. It takes documents other people wrote and writes one word next to each: approved, noted, revised, postponed and six others.
-
2.3 What came out of this one, in the plainest numbers
30 things started, 26 finished, 689 corrections. That is one plenary's output in three numbers.
-
3.1 How to read one document of it, end to end
The result word is the only one of the four that is written at the meeting. The other three were true before anybody sat down.
-
4.1 Where to look yourself, and why a draft report is not the last word
Start at the document list. The report is for the handful of documents you then want the story behind.
Easy to get wrong
-
1.6 What happens when a few hundred engineers meet for a week
"TSG SA decided it" is a sentence to check before repeating. Some of what a plenary announces was agreed with the other groups, not by SA alone.
-
2.2 What came out of this one, in the plainest numbers
"Noted" is not "accepted" and "endorsed" is not "approved". They sound like softer versions of stronger words and they are in fact different outcomes.
-
3.3 How to read one document of it, end to end
"The work item was approved" and "the question was settled" are two different statements. Here the first is true and the second is not.
-
4.2 Where to look yourself, and why a draft report is not the last word
The record also says nothing at all about what any of this means for a network operator — no deployment dates, no product impact, no market view. It is a meeting's paperwork and nothing more.
The numbers, and where each came from
Every one was counted out of a file on this machine. Hover a row to read the question that produced it.
- 568 568 people registered for the meeting
- 365 365 people checked in and so kept their voting rights
- 110 110 people registered to attend online
- 18 18 incoming liaison statements
- 2 2 outgoing liaison statements
- 62 62 different sources submitted documents
- 66 66 documents came from SA WG5
- 57 57 documents came from SA WG3
- 41 41 documents came from SA WG6
- 33 33 documents came from SA WG2
- 28 28 documents came from SA WG4
- 23 23 top-level agenda items
- 346 346 documents at SA#112
- 120 120 documents of type 'CR pack'
- 53 53 documents of type 'WID new'
- 199 199 documents ended the meeting 'approved'
- 68 68 documents ended the meeting 'noted'
- 60 60 documents ended the meeting 'revised'
- 5 5 documents ended the meeting 'postponed'
- 4 4 documents ended the meeting 'endorsed'
- 4 4 documents ended the meeting 'partially approved'
- 2 2 documents ended the meeting 'merged'
- 2 2 documents ended the meeting 'withdrawn'
- 1 1 document ended the meeting 'agreed'
- 1 1 document ended the meeting 'replied to'
- 30 30 new work items and study items were approved
- 11 11 work items and study items were updated
- 26 26 specifications and reports were approved
- 6 6 specifications and reports were noted for information
- 689 689 individual change requests
- 114 114 specifications were changed
- 140 140 documents belong to Rel-20
- 487 487 change requests in packs belong to Rel-20
- 26 26 documents belong to Rel-19
- 143 143 change requests in packs belong to Rel-19
- 11 11 documents belong to Rel-21
- 162 162 documents carry no release
- 284 284 of the 346 documents get a paragraph of their own in the report
- 224 224 of the meeting's documents have a machine-written summary
Where to look it up
The 35 named sources it cites, by what they are.
Meeting document 16
SP-260663SP-260664SP-260654SP-260696SP-260692SP-260604SP-260411SP-260470SP-260643SP-260417SP-260379SP-260387SP-260363SP-260655SP-260613SP-260361
Quoted wording 10
'The TSG SA Chair was Mr. Puneet Jaine (Intel), The Vice Chairs were Dr. Tao Sun (China Mobile), Ms. LaeYoung Kim (LG Electronics) and Mr. Johannes Achter (Deutsche Telekom). The Secretary was Mr. Maurice Pope (MCC).''The agenda was reviewed and approved.''The meeting was then closed.''It was decided to ask SA WG4, SA WG5 and SA WG6 to also submit ToRs to the next TSG SA meeting and SA WG1, SA WG2 and SA WG3 may update or re-submit the same ToR proposals.''SP-260595 was presented in the Joint session and was agreed.''TSG SA Chair to inform PCG on this issue of 3GPP involvement and legal requirements related to the dataset needed to train the AI model specific to 3GPP work.''This was postponed.''This new WID was approved.''The report of meeting SA#111 was approved.''Qualcomm objected to this decision.'
Page on the standards body's own site 5
The SA#112 document folderWelcome to TSG SA, revision 1SP-112 draft meeting report, version 0.0.5TdocsByAgenda, the SA#112 document listSP-260361, the SA#112 agenda, version 2
Specification 2
Meeting 1
Summary 1
Where to go from here
- The same subject, overview — Enough to follow the conversation and know what to look up.
- The same subject, in depth — The working reference: every mechanism, every parameter.
- Every question of this course — 16 of them, on one page.
- The final test — 10 questions, 60 per cent to pass.
- Every source behind the course — 150 of them, each with its method.