Sensing — the network as a radar

Easy to get wrong

• 1.1 A network that detects things, not only carries them

  Sensing is not positioning under a new name. Positioning answers "where is this connected device"; sensing answers "is there something out there at all". The proposal is explicit that the first is already supported and the second is not ^[2].

• 2.3 What it was supposed to be for, and what survived

  A conversation about sensing use cases is usually two conversations at once. "Sensing is for factories and hospitals" is true of TR 22.837. It is not true of anything currently being written, which is about drones.

• 3.4 The map of the groups, and where the weight sat

  Never quote a work item count for this area without saying what you counted. "18 work items" and "14 acronyms" are both true and neither is wrong. A reader who hears one and repeats the other has changed the fact.

• 4.5 The radio side and the architecture side

  "gNB-based sensing" sounds like it settles where the maths happens. It does not. The definition says in its second sentence that it implies no assumption about where the sensing result is generated.

• 5.4 The specifications it creates, and the ones it changes

  "TS 38.300 is affected by sensing" is true and almost empty. The work item lists it; the record holds no change request against it. Check for the change requests before believing any list of affected specifications, including this one.

• 6.3 Where it stands, read off the paper trail

  An approved study report is not a finished feature. All it means is that the homework is accepted. The rules are a separate work item, and for sensing not one of those has produced a published specification yet.

• 7.1 How to follow it yourself, and what the record will not tell you

  The reverse mistake is just as common: filtering by acronym and then believing the result is everything. It is not, and the next section says by how much.