I’d suggest broadening the scope slightly from “publishing” to also capture their " Improving Data Infrastructure", as I feel that we have all found that not only is it hard to “publish” the complete design so that it can be replicated, but also holding the data in a way that ongoing scientific collaboration can happen is as much (if not more) of a challenge.
I think that getting our data infrastructure right is a precursor to having all the data in place for consistent publishing that enables high quality replication. I am also sure that others disagree, hence why I agree we want to do one of the “expert gatherings”
Expert Gatherings (Working Groups): The second activity supports expert gatherings for areas within open science that face significant challenges but lack clear next steps. These meeting grants will enable diverse groups of experts to gather, discuss challenges, network, and brainstorm potential solutions. Outputs from these meetings may later qualify for prototype grants under this category. Meeting grants are designed to cover participant support and will be $20-100K.
I know that @Lionel and @Matt.Beddows are starting to push forward with their very modular approach to hardware documentation and eventually publishing/distribution. This dovetails somewhat with the work that @eric @jmwright @drayde and I are doing with NLNet on Open Hardware Manuals. And other GitBuilding work that on publishing that your grant was kind enough to fund 
I have also been in discussion with @amchagas about how we could fund some sort of academia focussed open hardware event again. We had SOSHA 2023 and Open Hardware from Academia in 2020.
[I also have thoughts on the paper you linked to, but I made a new thread for that! Business Models for Open Source Hardware Repositories]