Negative Results, No-Go Boundaries, and Rejected Branches of the Finite-Capacity Latency–Erasure Theory Why Certain Realizations Fail, Which Parameter Regions Are Excluded, and How the Program Was Narrowed into an Admissible Multi-Regime Effective Framework

We present the negative-results and no-go paper of the finite-capacity latency–erasure theory (FCLET), collecting the branches, parameter regions, and structural intuitions that must be rejected if the program is to remain scientifically disciplined. Earlier FCLET manuscripts established viable sectors of weak-field gravity, cosmology, perturbations, wave propagation, thermodynamics, compact objects, laboratory timing signatures, and microphysical patch occupancy. However, a mature theory program must also state clearly which constructions fail, which parameter choices are pathological, which early proposals were too aggressive, and why later moderated or screened realizations replaced them. The present manuscript provides that record. The purpose of this paper is not to weaken FCLET, but to strengthen its credibility. We identify broad classes of inadmissible branches, including load-overflow violations, unscreened weak-field realizations, unmoderated cosmological erasure blow-up, perturbative-instability sectors, radiatively inconsistent tensor branches, thermodynamic sign failures, strong-field shell realizations with uncontrolled reflectivity or matching breakdown, and microscopic species mappings that would destroy approximate macroscopic universality. We then explain how the surviving FCLET framework was narrowed by these exclusions. The resulting picture is not one of unbounded model freedom, but of a constrained effective architecture that remains viable only because large regions of theory space have already been abandoned. This manuscript is intentionally critic-facing. It answers the strongest methodological objection to an ambitious multi-paper theory program: that failures may be hidden while only successes are advertised. Here the opposite approach is adopted. We show what failed, why it failed, what was learned from the failure, and which revised structures now replace the rejected branches. This transforms negative results from embarrassment into part of the scientific backbone of the theory.