I'm not quite understanding what you're saying here. NM is stating exactly what's been said here... that there are points on the map, but those points don't depict the confidence interval. Just because the points are depicted as on the crime scene, does not mean that they were actually there... they could have been anywhere within the confidence interval. This image depicted in the US v Chatrie opinion demonstrates what is being explained quite well:
View attachment 521517
The red ring is the geofence. The blue rings are the confidence intervals for each of the devices that could potentially be within the geofence. However, you can very clearly see that there are phones on the map that could have potentially been outside of the geofence because of the inaccuracy of the location data.
My take on the map provided to the defense is that there was a map with just the "points" on it, so something like the map above with
only the blue icons and no confidence rings. The confidence information and time information is in a separate spreadsheet, as stated by NM. The defense only used the map to make their claim of phones within/near the crime scene, not taking the confidence intervals into account.
JMO