Exactly. The P has also not yet shown evidence that RA's phone was turned off, or not on the trails at any time that afternoon. They used that very evidence against Kohberger in Idaho, pointing out how the phone being off was itself incriminating behavior.
Imo, in this case, the geofence map not including RA's phone is neither here nor there without more data specific to RA's phone. Where was it, was it moving, was it on or off, was it where RA said he was using it, etc.
Neither the D or P are using RA's phone data so far in their motions, which makes it impossible to know what's significant, imo. Either side could be saving it for a later motion, or trial. Jmo.
For instance, the geofence seems to start at 12:39 (or was is 12:29?). RA said he was there at noon. So, was his phone on the trail before 12:39? Was it moving toward his home at 1:30? Or, was it on the trail at 1:45, then turned off? Was it off the entire afternoon, right when RA said he was using it on the trail? I think this will be important evidence at trial, either way.