The Surviving Count in a Torsion-Regulated Vacuum: An Equilibrium-Thickness Construction, Its Executed Censuses, and the Kinetic Law It Lacks

In the Einstein-Cartan bounce frame of the companion work, the vacuum density problem separates into two claims of different standing. The first is established, conditional on that work's counting-saturation postulate: the standard zero-point sum's excess of some 10^121 over the measured vacuum density is an artifact of an addition extended past the density at which its addends cease to be independent, and inside the frame the magnitude of the catastrophe does not arise. The second claim is a count. Reducing the saturated density rho_A by the frame's binary composition rho_A/2^N reproduces the measured density only at N* = log2(rho_A/rho_Lambda) = 281.1079, and no construction within the theory returns that count: the closest constructions return 287, 270 and 243. This paper constructs the deposit layer's thickness from the layer's own settling dynamics — an equilibrium-thickness construction in which the layer's capacity is its settling age — and reports executed censuses of every quantity that could complete the construction: every timescale of the theory as a candidate settling time, every ratio those timescales generate, every candidate initial density, every parameter-free form of the settling law, and every ratio available to the companion second-clock dynamics. No candidate completes the construction. Three ratios return the required total T = 281 exactly, each exhibited with its defect. The obstruction is reduced to a single missing constitutive statement — a kinetic law for the density state of the deposit layer — and a programme to construct that law from the theory's own materials is reported: every rate the theory's intrinsic dynamics supply is at least a factor 3.8 too fast, for a structural reason. The absence is then proved at inventory scope: within the theory's present statements, no kinetic law of the layer's density trajectory is derivable — a statement about the current inventory, explicitly not a proof that such a law cannot exist in the theory. The minimal premise that would supply the law is denominated in advance in three equivalent forms, all descending from the deposit layer's transverse structure. The surviving count is not produced.