This seems to be like the "experiment" of crashing the lunar prospector onto to the lunar surface and hoping to see water vapor plume as a result. It's a stab at finding a positive result- it's taking long odds you will strike the mother lode. I think that doing this survey was a good thing [and relatively very cost effective] and I like to see the actual results and no doubt it's going to have information which can be used for lunar exploration.
But I doubt that these results [and I say this without actually seeing the results] could rule out whether there are slabs of solid ice on the Moon.
The facts are that on the lunar surface in some region of lunar poles there will be miles of solid rock in a direct line of sight with earth- and there will never be a time when there isn't large quantity of rock between them- even if the moon wasn't tidally locked and rotated there would be situations where this would occur. The fact that they eliminate down to 2 meters in depth instead of miles underground indicate that after this detail survey there should still be large areas (In ballpark of at least Rhode Island size) in which surface could not be seen with radar.

As far as coldness, in regards to potential ice deposits, the area where the Earth and the Sun are never in direct line of sight will be the most constantly coldest regions and this should be one important factor in determining whether there are water deposits.

Now, if there is minable deposts of water on the Moon, this does not require solid ice, what is needed is fairly high concentration and modest amounts of this concentrated area- say, football fields in size. A 100 meter sq and 1/2 meter thick of solid ice is 5000 cu meters of water [5000 tonnes]. At $1000 per kg that is a gross worth of 5 billion dollars*. Now if instead you had an area of about 1 km sq [100 times the area] which had 5000 tonnes of ice in first 1/2 meter of depth [1/100th of the concentration] it's possible that this could be minable- if there was only one spot this "good" on the moon then it's unlikely to be minable, but if this was fairly common within region with relatively easy access, then it become more feasible.
* Another way to measure this is that it would require about 250 Saturn type launcher to bring this amount of water to the Moon, if a Saturn V only cost 1/2 billion per launch, then that's equal to $125 billion. Or if you were to buy existing launch vehicles capable of delivering 5 tons to the Moon, and got a modestly discounted cost of $75 million per launch, you get a cheaper price of 75 billion. The reason I give a lower value of $1000 per kg is that what is needed on the Moon is rocket fuel- so there is the added cost of converting the water AND you have to beat the easier solution of simply using existing launchers that can deliver whatever is needed- whether it's water, champagne, rocket fuel, or a shovel. The higher degree in which you can beat the competion (rockets from earth delivering rocket fuel to the Moon) the more potential demand there is for your product. If water can be bought for $1000 per kg on the Moon, the cost of rocket fuel [if one is talking about quantities in the 100s of tons range per year] will depend largely on the cost of the energy needed to change water to LH&LOX (rocket fuel), if electrical energy can bought at $50 per kwh, then rocket fuel could then be sold for around $2000 per kg at the lunar surface at the location it's produced at. Now, when I'm talking about price, I'm talking mostly about wholesale prices, if the retail price of rocket fuel on the lunar surface was say $5000-10,000 per kg, it would beat the competion in terms of rockets from Earth delivering rocket fuel and selling it on the lunar surface. If today you were able to buy any quantity you needed of rocket fuel on the lunar surface at say $10,000 per kg, you would be reducing the operational cost of sending a human to the Moon by about 1/2 [if development cost are tacked on the first trip this would drastically alter it and variations alone in possible development costs could alone easily overwhelm any cost saving- does developing one component, a lunar lander, cost 1/2, 1, or 2 billion {btw, this can be "turn around" if you say a lunar lander costs 1/2 billion, the refueling on the lunar lander, allows you to reuse that vehicle therefore "saving" about 1/2 billion in cost}]. Getting back to wholesale and retail, what I see, is companies forming cooperative arrangements, where they sell to each other at wholesale prices- say 10-20% above projected marginal costs such as $1000 per lb of water, $50 per Kwh, $2000 per kg of rocket fuel, and a launch company that gets cargo and crew from Earth, to the Moon, and back- the launch company needs rocket fuel; the lunar water mining company needs launch and power (perhaps both electrical and chemical [rocket fuel, oxygen and hydrogen to used for life support and mining operations]; the rocket fuel company needs water, electrical power, and launch [though transporting it's rocket fuel could also be it's function- to other places on lunar surface, and to lunar orbit]; and finally the power company that needs launch services. The main player in this could be the rocket fuel company, it could be a major oil company, it could own stocks in these other companies, it should see that an major part of it's long term market is not solely on the Lunar surface, but rather in lunar or high Earth orbit- it should be looking at the "transportation needs of interplanetary and/or space travel. Or the main player could be the electricity provider- again not just focusing on the Moon, but be thinking energy power needs for transportation in space, and of course on longer term Energy needs for Earth. Or the main player could the lunar mining company- which starts by mining water, but will expand operation to include all forms of mining lunar resources and other space resources.
End rant.]