I think this discussion misses the point to some extent: the goal is to eliminate false positives, not explain them.
Well sure, but the problem is that it's hard to think of concrete "regulations" or guidelines that would reduce false positives. In addition the antivirus companies are scored based on number of detections and rarely if ever on the number of false positives so they have little motivation to reduce them.
So I think this award is a recognition that we can't get rid of "false positives" but instea is an attempt to make sure that when an antivirus does alert, it is honest with the user about the assessment of the situation.
In my opinion, I would rather have an antivirus pop up an alert to me saying that it found something that *might* be problematic, and give me enough information to decide if it is, than to keep quiet or scream that the house is on fire.
EDIT: One thing that would reduce the number of false positives is if antivirus benchmarking sites evaluated and scored and reported on the number of false positives in antivirus products. I'm not sure how our award could address that though.