I write this answer to help you see the distinction between a question of law and a question of fact.
You have asked a factual question, not a question of law. To answer your question, one needs to determine whether in fact the specific "virtualised [or emulated] instance of an open source android version" is within the specific vendor's "supported or warranted configurations."
Certainly there are some factual questions that we can reasonably address at law.SE, like whether a hypothetical scenario falls within self-defence. In that case, the required elements of self-defence are well-established, either enumerated by statute or developed in case law, and we can apply that law to the circumstances. Even for those, the best approach is often to simply describe the law and leave it to readers to apply to the circumstances.
But the factual question presented here is about whether a circumstance falls within what a unique contractual term would require.
We have no special expertise at law.SE to do that factual investigation.
If the question intends to deem as a premise that the particular hypothetical instance is "quite specifically within the vendor of the open source android operating systems supported configurations" (as clarified in a comment to this answer) then yes, the instance is within the specific vendor's "supported or warranted configurations."
If you are simply curious how terms of a contract are interpreted, there are many other Q&As on this site explaining those principles. E.g.: how to interpret language in a contract.
