Describe leaderboard whiskers as centred on the point estimate

leaderboard.html

@@ -43,7 +43,7 @@
 </div>
 
 <div class="chart" id="bars"></div>
-<p class="chartnote">Hover a bar for the nine family means. Whiskers are 95% confidence intervals from the per-sample paired bootstrap of the technical report (20,000 replicates), computed on the same evaluation as the scores. Botanic0-L is the previous generation, shown in olive. Parameter counts are trainable parameters as declared by each model's configuration and code; PlantBiMoE has 116M trainable parameters and 64M active per token.</p>
+<p class="chartnote">Hover a bar for the nine family means. Whiskers are 95% confidence intervals from the per-sample paired bootstrap of the technical report (20,000 replicates), centred on the point estimate. Botanic0-L is the previous generation, shown in olive. Parameter counts are trainable parameters as declared by each model's configuration and code; PlantBiMoE has 116M trainable parameters and 64M active per token.</p>
 
 <h2 id="families">The nine task families</h2>
 <p>Zooming in per task shows that Botanic1 leads overall without dominating every capability: the flagship Botanic1-XL tops the benchmark and three task families, LLR mutation effect (AUROC 0.721), conservation and translation termination; Botanic1-L leads two more, genomic-region classification (0.527 versus 0.521 for PlantCAD2-L) and translation initiation; and Botanic1-M leads splicing (donor and acceptor mean 0.984 versus 0.978 for NTv3-650M-post, which uses test annotations during post-training). The autoregressive Evo 2 is close behind on variant-effect prediction, where its 7B model reaches an LLR AUROC of 0.710 and its 40B model 0.719 against 0.721 for Botanic1-XL, and its 40B model leads causal-variant discovery (recall AUC 0.756 against 0.753); PlantCAD2-L leads on chromatin accessibility (0.481 versus 0.480 for Botanic1-L) and PRO-seq (0.870 versus 0.869). Botanic1-XL is the only model that stays competitive across all nine families.</p>