This note revisits the earlier GCV–Kaloper–Padilla comparison from the standpoint of the current GCV programme. Its purpose is not to deny the kinship between the frameworks, but to identify more sharply where they overlap and where their structural emphases differ. The paper argues that GCV and Kaloper–Padilla-type sequester are closest neighbours in spirit inside the broader constant-mode-control family, while also showing that the present GCV record is structurally distinct in four respects: the controlled object, the explicit global/local split written into the local Einstein equation, the operator-audit formulation of radiative stability, and the completion criterion adopted for a flux-discretuum theory. A broader comparison matrix places GCV relative to standard GR/EFT, unimodular gravity, Brown–Teitelboim / Bousso–Polchinski flux-discretuum models, and Kaloper–Padilla-type sequester before narrowing to the GCV–KP comparison. The note also clarifies an important boundary condition in the current GCV programme: dense residual support is only an ingredient, not the full completion criterion. The completed GCV route is modular and includes, in addition to the GR-exact radiative-stability backbone, separate observed-value-localisation and positive-Λ modules. This is a positioning-led comparison note. It does not attempt to carry the full proof burden of the GCV framework on its own; the operator-level defence, UV-audit interface, and programme-level synthesis remain in the companion records cited in the bibliography. Project homepage: https://johansson.digital Project overview hub: https://github.com/gcv-framework/gcv-vacuum-energy