What physical process prevents vorticity from also appearing in the upper layer at that boundary?

Your question asks about a *specific boundary condition* in one of these papers, but it's phrased in a way that assumes I know which layer-interface you're referring to. Let me address the most likely candidate.

In [AG-2024.09-427], the model assumes an upper layer with no vorticity and a lower layer with constant vorticity. The physical mechanism preventing vorticity from appearing at that boundary is the assumption of an inviscid (frictionless) fluid combined with the requirement that velocity remain continuous across the interface.

Here's why: in an inviscid flow, vorticity cannot be generated *within* a fluid element unless it was already present at the boundary condition. Vorticity at the upper-lower interface would have to have come from somewhere—either transported from the lower layer or created by friction. But inviscid flow forbids the friction mechanism. The model is constructed so that shear vorticity remains *confined to the lower layer* by design: the upper layer simply doesn't accumulate rotational motion because there's no dissipative mechanism to spin it up, and no external forcing to do so [AG-2024.09-427].

In other words, it's a *kinematic separation*: the upper layer is kept irrotational by the initial conditions and the absence of sources that would generate vorticity there. The boundary doesn't "prevent" vorticity so much as the model assumes it starts unrotational and stays that way.

That said, the preprints don't explicitly discuss *why* you'd expect vorticity to spontaneously appear at that boundary in the first place, which might be what you're really asking.