discussion on FLOC performance?

Hi Wendy and group,
We would like to put FLoC's performance level discussion to the agenda
to ideally get:- More details about the test objectives (metrics;
dimensions; etc.)
- More technical details about the creation of the FLoC (FLoC size;
FLoC assignment detailed methodology)
- External communication clarification
2 sessions ago, there were many interesting points raised around
Google's recent communication pieces about FLoC performance compared
to 3rd cookies. In particular, the idea that FLoC would retain 95% of
the performance brought by third party cookies seemed to draw
particular attention from the community. Then, someone from Google Ads
said that they would share the analysis this figure was drawn from
with some details.
If I am not mistaken, the only publication so far consists of this
brief explainer:
https://github.com/google/ads-privacy/blob/master/proposals/FLoC/Floc-live-experiments.md.
It does bring some clarifications, such as the fact that the
experiment concerned a very narrow use case ('audience targeting'
based on Google taxonomy), with some others explicitly out of scope
(remarketing, others vendors taxonomies).
However, despite Google's reassurance that the AB test was conducted
in the best conditions, and with sound analytical methodology - which
we have no reason to doubt - we still miss a lot of details that would
allow everyone to understand how FLoC would impact their products
(flock sizes, proprietary taxonomy impact, etc).
Stating that 95% of the performance is preserved without stating the
particular use case it was measured against implies that Google
Chrome's FLoC will be considered as good as long as it allows
emulation of Google Ads proprietary taxonomy. I hope this is not the
case, and I assume this was not the intention of the analysis, but
that what it looks like.
All in all, this 95% number is an overstatement that does convey a
misleading idea to the public. In my opinion, the whole group, and the
FLoC project itself, would seriously benefit from a broader, more
detailed clarification.
Thank you very much in advance,
Arnaud Blanchard