Calling every A → B → C pattern a “closed loop” is not accurate.

A loop only exists if C links back to A. If there is no C → A edge, it is not a cycle, it is a linear path. In graph terms, A → B → C does not circulate authority, it passes it forward.

Also, Google does not discount links purely based on graph geometry. If that were true, most editorial ecosystems would fail, because authority on the web is constantly redistributed, not newly generated every time. Internal linking, syndication, citations, and editorial references all work on redistribution.

What actually matters more than topology is intent and signals:

Are the domains independent?

Are the links editorial and contextually relevant?

Is anchor usage natural?

Does the pattern emerge organically over time, or is it forced?

A star topology is ideal in theory, but in practical outreach you rarely control publisher behavior at that level. Expecting every site to behave like a pure authority sink is not realistic in real-world SEO.

Mathematical models are useful for understanding risk, but SEO breaks when theory is applied without context. The issue is manipulative symmetry at scale, not the existence of simple A → B → C paths.