This is not bad at all. Perhaps it is possible to discard the mention of an approaching collapse and instead just write that you are forced (like you did here) to, with no mention why you are forced (which was the reason for mentioning an approaching collapse). Perhaps you could even discard the word “start”, it would then become:
JP: Being forced to release control of one object in order to control another object.
JP: Being forced to release control of one task in order to control another task.
Should there be a mention that it has to happen in a repeating sequence?
How about this situation: My friend came over to visit me, and drove his car into my driveway. I arrived just after him, and parked my car behind his. My wife then came home and parked her car after mine. My friend then remembers that he left the stove on in his home and urgently needs to drive back home to turn it off. My wife is now sleeping, so I have to move both our cars out of the way, to let my friend out. I drive out the 1st car, and then “release control” of it by temporarily parking it on the side of the street, and then get into the 2nd car and drive that one out. Did I juggle the cars? I would say no. Even if I was forced to get both cars out of the way, and I could only drive one at a time. I’d say, for this event to count as juggling, the drive of the 2nd car somehow has to force the 1st car once again. There is something about maintaining a sequence, where the last activity of the sequence somehow forces the sequence to start over again.
JP: Being forced to release control of one task in order to control another task, that in turn will force the first task to be controlled again, in a repeating sequence.
I should also say, (and I did not think I would ever write this) I agree with all the other things Jack wrote.