If you can do central planning, money becomes mostly superfluous. The whole point is that factories don't pay for their inputs, stores are stocked without borrowing to buy goods, profitability of individual firms becomes irrelevant, and the overwhelming majority of economic activity is based on supplying planned needs.

You could still have money but needing money to live a normal life or being able to use money to invest or stockpile goods would represent a failure of central planning.

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see how central planning makes money superfluous. Central planning doesn't mean you're beyond scarcity. Money quantifies the worker's share of the production and their spending communicates demands and priorities for subsequent production. There's no getting around having prices for things, the prices are just lower because they are not calculated to be as high as possible to maximize profits for investors and because the redundant production, marketing, and financing expenses associated with competition are eliminated.

> It wasn't my intent to imply this didn't involve money

Limiting the scope of markets limits the utility-signalling function of money, even if it is retained (as, in practice, centrally-planned systems tend to.)

This is a problem of input data that technology that provides alternative mechanisms to collect the same data (cell phone purchasing) does not address.