Your description of the PenTile (RG/BW) not-true-4K display is OK. Here's what I'd change:
- Start out by calling out the PenTile issue. It fundamentally affects what the resolution spec means, so I would say it should go in the overview and as part of the introduction to the display section. I would also put it in the display description as it appears in comparisons with other laptops' displays -- perhaps call it "3840RG(BW)x2160" not "3840x2160". I would try not to treat it as normal 4K at first only to somewhat rectify the misnomer further into the details.
- Call it "RG/BW" not "RGBW". The term "RGBW" can be misleading because it can be interpreted as if all four components were in each denoted pixel, which isn't the case. "RG-BW" and "RG(BW)" are also OK.
- Don't tout the "advantages" of PenTile without putting them into context. The manufacturing cost, power draw, and sharpness are all lower than true-3840x2160, but the same is the case for "lower resolution" true-resolution displays such as "3K" 2880x1620, which demand less from the GPU and aren't as "bad" when software scaling fails. Sharp IGZO true-3840x2160 displays also have lower power draw due to their smaller transistors blocking out less of the backlight. There are no "advantages" to PenTile displays that aren't solved better by other, non-PenTile displays.
- Don't dismiss PenTile because it's "not very noticeable". Some find it easily noticeable. I do. In particular, it can mean that using 150% scaling to achieve a 2560x1440-sized workspace on not-true-3840x2160 won't look as good as using 125% to achieve a workspace the same size on a true-3200x1800 display. Or 250% scaling on the former vs 200% scaling on the latter, for a similarly-sized workspace. For those who won't notice, then again I would say a "lower resolution" true-resolution display would be more welcome.
You're already better at calling out this issue than some review sites. But I think your classification and descriptions of the issue still can be improved.