If the R7 was a baby R3 (as most people who want an R7 would appear to like - built in grip, ergonomics, rugged etc) how much cheaper would/could it be? Obviously the sensor & shutter would be smaller and hopefully cheaper, but all the rest would be the same. Maybe the processing would be less demanding (but if 30+ MP like the 90D and 30FPS like the R3 it would be more!) and it could be smaller, saving some materials. Could more than $1,000 be shaved off the cost of an R3 and would people pay that much when the 90D is only $1,200.
As a side note - did I miss something? The 7D Mark II is showing as discontinued in various places.