La Profilée - The Dynamics of Structural Overload: Collapse Latency, Compensation Exhaustion, and the Structural Conditions for Restitution

La Profilée (LP) establishes a necessary persistence condition IR = R / (F · I · C) ≤ 1. Prior publications have applied this condition diagnostically — identifying systems in Regime E (sustained IR > 1) and characterising their collapse dynamics. What has not been formally derived is why IR > 1 does not produce immediate visible collapse, and what structural conditions determine whether a system in Regime E can return to IR ≤ 1. This paper derives two structural theorems. The Collapse Latency Theorem establishes that every system entering IR > 1 possesses a structurally finite compensation capacity — a set of mechanisms that delay visible manifestation of overload without restoring the structural condition. This capacity is exhaustible by structural necessity: compensation consumes integration resources, accelerating the very depletion it masks. The interval between IR > 1 crossing and visible collapse — Tᵥisible — is therefore not random but structurally determined by the system's initial compensation capacity, the rate of compensation consumption, and the trajectory of IR above 1. The Restitution Asymmetry Theorem establishes that structural recovery from Regime E is not the reverse of the collapse path. Restitution requires restoration of structural components in a specific order — determined by the logical dependencies of the persistence condition — and this order is different from the order in which those components degraded during collapse. Collapse is driven by multiplicative IK depletion; restitution requires sequential restoration with F as the necessary precondition for I recovery, and I as the necessary precondition for C restoration. Systems that attempt restitution in the wrong order fail structurally, regardless of the resources applied. Together, these theorems provide the formal foundation for prospective structural diagnosis — the identification of IR > 1 before visible collapse — and for structurally grounded intervention design. They also establish the fundamental asymmetry of collapse and recovery: the path into Regime E and the path out are structurally distinct processes governed by different structural necessities.