Settings are super-important. People respond poorly if you lie to them, and the same is true for Speeduino. Poor or incorrect settings (including calibrations) must be reasonably accurate. Correct the ones that are not, and establish correct settings for those not yet set.
I see some sympathetic cycling of other functions, but your GammaE is cycling from ~65% to ~ 78%, along with your Gego +/- 20% every 2 seconds or so. I'd be looking there. Diagnostics (tuning) involves reviewing clues, and creating more clues if necessary. Perhaps change one thing to see what it affects, e.g., turn-off ego corrections in order to see how it responds. What changed? Why is it different?
I call this type of cycling "hunting", as it is hunting for stability on an unstable edge or slope somewhere, for the current control settings. Without being specific for this particular example; it could be unstable due to ignition timing transitions, lean-surging, etc. Likewise, it may not be a tune condition, but a control condition. For example, excessive EGO control can induce swings (cycling) in fueling as it goes too far or too quickly in corrections, then is forced to swing again in recovery. Tame your control authority. Soften your response time or allowed %, etc. Stuff like that.
Corrections should stabilize the tune (if it's a good tune), but also provide valuable information of what the system needs. What is it the engine telling you by its response? What is Speeduino telling you by its corrections? We would rather not use corrections to beat it into submission, but rather use responses to guide us (the tuner) toward what the engine either wants or away from what it does not like. BTW, your Spark Table and AFR Table are critical info for diagnostics but did not import with the tune, so I'm assuming some stuff here, and therefore only making general suggestions. That's OK, as general direction and concepts are more important to tuning in the long term. Rock on!