equation 16 counterintuitive

[orgw]

hi, i'm new to survival analysis and equation 16 seems rather counterintuitive. To be more specific shouldn't the hazard ratio before i (so the 3rd term in equation 16) be close to zero(meaning survival rate high until event at i), but since the loss should decrease, i think it forces lambda to get bigger... which i dont understand. if i look at Reference 20's equation this is intuitive but may i ask how you derived your equation? i'm new to this field so please understand my short knowledge. thanks

your paper's eq 16

this is reference