Fix opportunity competing-risk evaluation

results/easycom_egospeak_three_level_eval_2026-09-16/README.md

@@ -1,5 +1,11 @@
 # EasyCom EgoSpeak three-level evaluation
 
+> **Protocol erratum.** The dense and raw-boundary results in this record remain
+> valid. The opportunity-conditioned ENTRY/INT values were produced by the
+> superseded v1 loader, which could cross an intervening ENTRY competitor and
+> selected the latest onset in ambiguous multi-competitor INT cases. Do not cite
+> those opportunity values; rerun protocol v2 and create a new result record.
+
 This record freezes the first Sessions 1--3 evaluation of the released
 EgoSpeak MiniROADA audio-visual checkpoint under three deliberately separate
 questions. The values below were produced on the remote experiment host; the
@@ -15,7 +21,7 @@ prediction and per-event artifacts remain on that host and are not committed.
 - Raw boundary anticipation: threshold-free AP for wearer `OFF->ON` and
   `ON->OFF` changes. These are timing-derived diagnostics, not semantic EOT or
   INT claims.
-- Opportunity-conditioned behavior: one causally censored activity-derived
+- Opportunity-conditioned behavior: historical v1 activity-derived
   score per reviewed ENTRY or INT/YIELD opportunity. Labels are provisional
   two-pass LLM-assisted reviews and have not been human reviewed.
 - No test-set threshold is fitted for any AP reported here. Session 4 is needed
@@ -34,15 +40,16 @@ mean AP, respectively. These lower values do not contradict the dense result:
 dense AP rewards correct future state over sustained regions, whereas a raw
 boundary event is counted once and has many harder non-boundary comparisons.
 
-On the provisional opportunity labels, ENTRY AP is **52.487%** for 163
+The superseded v1 run reported ENTRY AP of **52.487%** for 163
 positives and 335 hard negatives, versus 32.731% positive prevalence
 (+19.756 points; 1.60x prevalence). INT/YIELD AP is **20.135%** for 28 positives
-and 109 hard negatives, essentially equal to its 20.438% prevalence. This is
-consistent with the output contract: wearer probability can rank many entry
-opportunities, but `1-p(wearer)` does not encode whether an interruption should
-cause a yield. The ENTRY and INT loaders additionally exclude 81 and 5
-invalid/post-outcome cases; these exclusions require an audit before any final
-paper claim.
+and 109 hard negatives, essentially equal to its 20.438% prevalence. These
+values are retained only for provenance and must be replaced by a v2 rerun. The
+original pattern was consistent with the output contract: wearer probability
+can rank many entry opportunities, but `1-p(wearer)` does not encode whether an
+interruption should cause a yield. The ENTRY and INT loaders additionally
+exclude 81 and 5 invalid/post-outcome cases; these exclusions require an audit
+before any final paper claim.
 
 ## Relation to EgoSpeak Figure 7
 
@@ -73,4 +80,3 @@ Machine-readable curves and counts are in [`summary.json`](summary.json) and
 the compact comparison is in [`metrics.csv`](metrics.csv). The opportunity
 protocol and reproduction command are documented in
 [`docs/easycom_opportunity_event_evaluation.md`](../../docs/easycom_opportunity_event_evaluation.md).
-

results/easycom_egospeak_three_level_eval_2026-09-16/summary.json

@@ -1,6 +1,8 @@
 {
   "recorded_at": "2026-09-16",
   "source": "user-provided remote experiment output",
+  "opportunity_protocol_status": "superseded_v1_rerun_required",
+  "opportunity_protocol_erratum": "Dense and raw-boundary metrics remain valid; opportunity metrics must be rerun with egospeak-opportunity-conditioned-floor-actions-v2.",
   "dataset": "EasyCom",
   "sessions": ["Session_1", "Session_2", "Session_3"],
   "model": "EgoSpeak MiniROADA audio-visual released checkpoint",
@@ -57,4 +59,3 @@
   "threshold_free": true,
   "session4_required_for_reported_metrics": false
 }
-