Merge RESULTS_THRESHOLDED.md into RESULTS.md (section D); rewrite README.md for JANUS

RESULTS.md

@@ -159,10 +159,10 @@ This is **+0.31 over our own legacy memory baseline of 0.62**. The "main
 attack direction" recorded in `reverse_cross_score_redirection_2026_04_25`
 is now substantially solved.
 
-Thresholded F1 / Precision / Recall / TPR@FPR (unsupervised protocol, τ from
-benign-val percentile) are reported separately in `RESULTS_THRESHOLDED.md`.
-Headline thresholded numbers: CICDDoS2019 within `terminal_norm` F1=0.993 ± 0.001
-at τ=P95; cross `terminal_norm` F1=0.632 ± 0.051 at τ=P95 (precision ≈ 0.95, recall ≈ 0.47).
+Thresholded F1 / Precision / Recall / TPR@FPR under the unsupervised threshold
+protocol are reported in **section D** below. Headline thresholded numbers:
+CICDDoS2019 within `terminal_norm` F1=0.993 ± 0.001 at τ=P95; cross `terminal_norm`
+F1=0.632 ± 0.051 at τ=P95 (precision ≈ 0.95, recall ≈ 0.47).
 
 > **Note on cross-dataset baseline**: Shafir's Table IX is asymmetric.
 > The IDS2017→DDoS2019 direction (which we evaluate) reads **0.89**, not
@@ -175,6 +175,52 @@ at τ=P95; cross `terminal_norm` F1=0.632 ± 0.051 at τ=P95 (precision ≈ 0.95
 > Single-policy σ=0.6 also beats Shafir on 4/4. Full 4×2 sensitivity table
 > in `artifacts/sigma_validation.md`.
 
+### D. Thresholded operating-point metrics
+
+⚠️ Numbers in this section are from the **Unified_CFM legacy** recipe (σ=0.1
+within, σ=0.6 cross, λ=0.3, single fixed score). Equivalent thresholded
+numbers for current JANUS + Mahalanobis-OAS have not been recomputed yet;
+the AUROC tables (A/B/C above) are the authoritative JANUS comparison.
+
+**Protocol**: τ is set from a benign-val half (A); F1 / Precision / Recall /
+FPR are measured on benign-val half B + attack. AUROC / AUPRC use full
+benign val + attack. TPR@FPR is measured on the test half. Both percentiles
+τ ∈ {P95, P99} are reported because they correspond to different operating
+points and F1 is sensitive to that choice.
+
+**CICDDoS2019 within** (σ=0.1, λ=0.3):
+
+| Score | AUROC | AUPRC | F1 (P95) | Prec (P95) | Recall (P95) | FPR (P95) | F1 (P99) | TPR@1%FPR | TPR@5%FPR |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| `terminal_norm` | 0.9960 ± 0.0011 | 0.9975 ± 0.0008 | 0.9932 ± 0.0012 | 0.9881 ± 0.0015 | 0.9983 ± 0.0008 | 0.0481 ± 0.0061 | 0.9112 ± 0.0402 | 0.9013 ± 0.0540 | 0.9980 ± 0.0014 |
+| `terminal_flow` | 0.9885 ± 0.0028 | 0.9918 ± 0.0017 | 0.9788 ± 0.0086 | 0.9868 ± 0.0009 | 0.9710 ± 0.0163 | 0.0517 ± 0.0030 | 0.7752 ± 0.0128 | 0.6052 ± 0.0347 | 0.9697 ± 0.0169 |
+
+**CICIDS2017 → CICDDoS2019 cross** (σ=0.6, λ=0.3):
+
+| Score | AUROC | AUPRC | F1 (P95) | Prec (P95) | Recall (P95) | FPR (P95) | F1 (P99) | TPR@1%FPR | TPR@5%FPR |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| `terminal_norm` | 0.9109 ± 0.0032 | 0.8974 ± 0.0047 | 0.6321 ± 0.0513 | 0.9545 ± 0.0045 | 0.4745 ± 0.0550 | 0.0441 ± 0.0011 | 0.4202 ± 0.0171 | 0.2685 ± 0.0139 | 0.4940 ± 0.0399 |
+| `terminal_flow` | 0.9197 ± 0.0036 | 0.8957 ± 0.0086 | 0.6324 ± 0.0585 | 0.9517 ± 0.0055 | 0.4762 ± 0.0639 | 0.0469 ± 0.0019 | 0.4028 ± 0.0049 | 0.2534 ± 0.0039 | 0.4776 ± 0.0636 |
+
+**Reading**:
+
+- *Within-dataset CICDDoS2019* saturates: at τ=P95 F1 ≈ 0.99 with balanced
+  precision and recall ≈ 0.99; at τ=P99 (≈1% FPR) F1 ≈ 0.91 with TPR@1%FPR
+  ≈ 0.90. The model is a working detector at fixed thresholds, not just an
+  AUROC artifact.
+- *Cross-dataset CICIDS2017→CICDDoS2019* keeps AUROC ≈ 0.91 but at fixed τ
+  shows precision ≈ 0.95 / recall ≈ 0.50 at P95 and ≈0.27 at 1% FPR — the
+  cross-dataset domain shift compresses the score gap, so source-calibrated
+  thresholds are conservative on target. **AUROC alone overstates
+  deployability cross-dataset; thresholded numbers are the honest figure.**
+
+**TIPSO-GAN comparability**: TIPSO-GAN's CICDDoS2019 F1 ≈ 0.99 is reported
+under a **supervised** protocol (model has seen attack examples). Our F1
+≈ 0.99 on CICDDoS2019 within is achieved under the **unsupervised** protocol
+(benign-only training, threshold from benign val), which is the strictly
+harder setting. Direct F1 numerical equivalence; protocol asymmetry is in
+our favor.
+
 ## Methodological contribution: `flow_consistency` diagnostic score
 
 Phase 2 masked-prediction consistency loss unlocks a new score that is
@@ -319,9 +365,6 @@ artifacts.
 
 ## Source artifacts
 
-- `RESULTS_THRESHOLDED.md` — F1 / Precision / Recall / TPR@FPR under unsupervised
-  threshold protocol (τ = benign-val P95/P99) for CICDDoS2019 within and
-  CICIDS2017→CICDDoS2019 cross.
 - `artifacts/locked_baselines.md` — verified Shafir baselines (PDF inspection trail).
 - `artifacts/sigma_validation.md` — full 4×2 σ-sensitivity table (σ ∈ {0.1, 0.6} ×
   4 tasks, 3 seeds each) and per-task σ-selection protocol.