docs: generalize manuscript across omni backbones

manuscript/main/README.md

@@ -28,3 +28,29 @@ main/
 The author/affiliation, final results, Method, Experimental Setup, Results and
 Conclusion are still explicit TODOs. Do not turn planned experiments into
 reported findings.
+
+The current paper thesis is model-agnostic and deliberately narrower than
+addressee prediction. It asks whether general-purpose omni representations
+expose the fine-grained evidence needed for 200 ms wearer floor-action
+projection, whether PEFT can recover it, and whether causal local audio/person
+evidence provides a reliable complement. The initial planned backbone set is:
+
+- Qwen2.5-Omni-3B;
+- Qwen2.5-Omni-7B;
+- MiniCPM-o 4.5.
+
+The backbone and final fusion method are **not frozen yet**. Current Qwen-3B
+numbers are exploratory motivation, not evidence that every omni model has the
+same limitation. Compare frozen, PEFT, and local-evidence protocols within each
+backbone; report common local encoders separately from model-native local
+encoders. Raw cross-model scores are secondary because the models expose
+different streaming/readout interfaces.
+
+Track-consistent person fusion remains one candidate after pooled and
+capacity-matched controls. If selected, dataset participant IDs route
+short-term causal state only; they are not semantic inputs. The publication
+gate is an event-level reduction in multi-other false entries at matched
+wearer-onset recall without degrading onset latency or wearer-yield behavior.
+A general omni claim requires a consistent result across at least two backbone
+families; otherwise the paper must state a model-specific finding. Selected
+examples are explanatory evidence only.