Fix eval chart labels

README.md

@@ -70,13 +70,13 @@ Held-out mixed PE/ELF evaluation, 40 binaries total, balanced by format and beni
 
 | Checkpoint / workflow | Strict accuracy | Binary accuracy | Notes |
 |---|---:|---:|---|
-| SFT baseline | 55.0% | 62.5% | Initial supervised model. |
-| SFT + IPO | 57.5% | 57.5% | Preference-tuned checkpoint; improved answer rate but still weak on ELF malware. |
-| SFT + IPO + release static workflow | 67.5% | 67.5% | Same IPO family with deeper static-analysis workflow and final-answer forcing. |
+| Base model | 55.0% | 62.5% | Untuned base under the same holdout triage harness. |
+| SFT | 57.5% | 57.5% | Supervised checkpoint on PE/ELF reverse-engineering tasks. |
+| SFT + IPO | 67.5% | 67.5% | Preference-optimized release workflow with deeper static-analysis settings and final-answer forcing. |
 
 Observed gains:
 
-- strict accuracy improved from 55.0% to 67.5% in the release workflow (+12.5 percentage points);
+- strict accuracy improved from 55.0% on the base model to 67.5% with SFT + IPO in the release workflow (+12.5 percentage points);
 - labeled ELF malware performance improved substantially under the deeper static workflow;
 - benign ELF calibration regressed in that run, so unknown/benign decisions still need analyst review.