As commented last time, I have no real idea what the distinction can mean. Please explain clearly a scenario whereby there is 'core collapse' directly to a SMBH. It seems to imply a preexisting super massive star. There is a general consensus the upper limit to a 'modern' star is ~ 250 M solar. Above that limit stellar formation is unstable and there is break up to multiple star formation, and/or violent mass ejection. That's way smaller than any believed galactic center SMBH that range afaik from ~ 10^6 to ~ 2*10^10 M solar (so far observed). We have gone over this in a past thread. Yes 'average density' is much below that of a hypothetical (and immediately unstable for reasons already laid out) NS of such mass. Actually, for a ~ 10^9 M solar SMBH hypothetically formed by radial infall of a uniform distribution of typical stellar mass stars, the EH forms while at least most such stars are still individual stars i.e. tidal forces are too weak to disrupt them at the time of fall past EH. Basically a 'dust' accretion scenario. Once in, the standard story is a one-way journey with no stopping en route. Unless you believe in Black Star physics or such. Now, I have answered all your relevant questions and then some. Instead of playing games here and I now call on you to finally answer all my unanswered and relevant questions from previous posts: A: From #48: Sort of looks very much like a standard BH scenario has insisted on taking over, wouldn't you say? B: From #55: I will take a stab and assume you are referring to the 'gossimer thin shell' of #29 as a collection of many point particles. So? Do you concede the argument and conclusion is sound? Do you further concede things only get more extreme in terms of curvature, hypothetical shell stresses etc. as one descends below EH? Assuming so, what's left to argue over?