You're totally right. The more accurate thing to say is "you could be convicted of residential burglary by walking through an open door if the prosecution could convince a jury you did so with the intent to commit a further crime".
That sounds right. I also appreciate how much you regularly add to discussion about the CFAA. I personally think it's a horrible law, but for the most part my understanding of it matches yours. Too many people mix up what "should be" vs. "what is".
In general, I've learned that if you ever wonder whether you might be breaking the CFAA, you are in violation of the CFAA. The only time this logic has ever failed that I've seen was HiQ vs. LinkedIn.
