Thanks, Lee!
On the military presence topic, there was a robust legal debate whether PMCs constituted presence. Most thought they did not. However, the CT topic has several wording options which range from withdrawing "its" forces, which likely do not include PMCs, from "removing operations" which is much broader and could be argued by an affirmative to include private corporations. While none of the topical evidence in the paper speaks directly to this concern, like you said, this is easily an issue that could be resolved with a few more searches prior to the committee meeting, especially via submission of wording papers that argue for or against the inclusion of PMCs.
In any case, this topic is sure to engage the core questions of the value of US military CT policies because of the particular salience of the US military being present in a conflict vs a PMC force. If an affirmative could prove that a PMC is conducting CT, rather than merely SSR or COIN activities, then I do not see why that would be untopical. Because this topic places an emphasis on the operational level of counterterrorism, rather than the exact weapons or authority used, whether or not an aff can withdraw PMCs is ultimately reliant on their role in combat, which just forces more of a defense of military counterterrorism, specifically, rather than individual troop or weapon types.
I'll add that I hope PMC usage is not a gateway issue for determining the value of the CT topic. Whether PMCs are an affirmative argument or negative CP/alt cause, there is still plenty of robust debate about overall US presence, the particular salience of US military forces, and direct military cooperation with local governments.
I hope this helps!
Miles