No problem! We've all been there!
I think it may be worth taking another look at the way Dramatica defines "avoid," arguably the key characteristic of an antagonist:
"Like its counter-part, Pursue, the Avoid characteristic causes a character to be a real self-starter. The difference is, just as strongly as Pursuit tries to close in on the something, Avoid tries to escape it. Avoid can take the forms "escape" or "prevent," depending upon whether the focus of the effort is an object or a process. Avoid might be seen as running away, but that has its place. And certainly, when seen as "prevent," it might be applied to stopping something very negative from happening. Of course, it could also prevent something positive or really just be running away from something that should be faced. Pursue and Avoid are not value judgments but directions."
So, as you can see, a character with this element may be quite active in "pursuit" of their aims, and in absence of sufficient context may indeed appear to be "pursuing" their own goals in the Dramatica definition of the word. And since "pursuit" and "avoid" are a dynamic pair, they can blend into one another quite easily. They are the two ends of one spectrum, so to speak, and thus it can be easy to confuse one for the other, especially when it comes to the main character.
But my point was meant to be: our perspective in the Bond movies is always focused on what Bond is doing in relation to the goal. He's pursuing information, he's hunting down the bad guys, he's jetting off across the world in the hopes of finding something.
But if Bond is the main character, we're by definition going to be focused on what he's doing in relation to the goal. The MC throughline provides us our "I" into the story, the personal POV through which we view the events that unfold. Thus the story will always be "focused" on his actions, regardless of whatever role he plays in the overall story throughline; i.e. whether he is the antagonist or the protagonist or something else entirely.
And furthermore, because we see the story "through his eyes," we're inclined to see his justifications as truth unless we are given enough context by the other throughlines to unequivically demonstrate that he is in error. In other words, he may very well think he is the protagonist, and we will be inclined to take him at his word, regardless of whether he is correct in this belief or not, simply because he is the MC and we empathize with him.
Take Humbert Humbert, who spends the majority of Lolita trying to convince us that his role in the OS is different than what it would appear to be, just based on the facts:
“Frigid gentlewomen of the jury! I had thought that months, perhaps years, would elapse before I dared to reveal myself to Dolores Haze; but by six she was wide awake, and by six fifteen we were technically lovers. I am going to tell you something very strange: it was she who seduced me.”
In other words, he's not the protagonist, he's the antagonist. Dolores seduced him, not the other way around. He knows the overall story goal of "seducing a child" is reprehensible, so his only hope of defense is to portray himself as the one seeking to avoid that goal's realization. And so crafty is his manipulation that many readers are inclined to believe him, or at least to sympathize with his "plight." That's what the empathy of the MC throughline allows; it prejudices the reader to share the views of the MC, even if that MC is wrong, or worse, actively deceitful. And this is why we need all four throughlines to be complete in order to work out what really happened in a given story; we need all four to be able to determine whose justifications are correct, and whose are in error.
So what I'm getting at here is, with these movies: who are the influence characters? What are the relationship throughlines? Without those throughlines, we lack adequate information to understand what argument is even being made by the story, and thus what roles the various characters play in the articulation of that argument. My contention is that most (if not all) of these films fail to articulate a complete argument at all, as many of them lack entire throughlines! The RS is supposed to be the mirror of the OS; without one, we can never completely define the other. This doesn't mean that the James Bond films aren't fun to watch or interesting or memorable in some regards. But if they aren't making complete arguments, then determining which characters play which roles will probably always be a bit tricky, because these roles only have true meaning in context of complete arguments, which (I believe) have not been made by these films.