That doesn't answer any of my questions, and they don't have any citation in that block of text. Real details could be in any of the 8 papers linked, or none at all.
If you just want to know the difference between CHAMP and HAMT, then Google gets you that information pretty swiftly. Maybe you were looking for https://blog.acolyer.org/2015/11/27/hamt which discusses HAMT and then discusses the improvements CHAMP brings to the table.
It doesn't make it a bad thesis, but also doesn't answer the questions asked, which is presumably why they were asked.
You can also have a look at the JVMLS'16 talk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUXeNAeyY34) for a high-level overview of the work that is covered in my thesis.
Let's say that I were to use a vector of coordinates as the key to something in a map. Would CHAMP still vastly outperform HAMT?
To answer your questions about using vectors of coordinates of keys: it depends on the design implementation of the vector's hash code, regardless if you use HAMT or CHAMP.
Using collections as keys in other collections is in general a performance sensitive subject. The available HAMT implementations in Clojure and Scala fail to deliver here. The case study in Chapter 3.7 nests hash-sets into hash-sets (i.e., Set.Immutable<Set.Immutable<K>> sets). The CHAMP implementation yields minimal speedups of ~10x over Clojure and Scala due to the way it calculates and incrementally updates the collection's hash code.