No, Ladislaus, you are just wrong when you say voto refers to a simple prerequisite, as even a very brief glance at the comparable texts for penance and the Eucharist would show you. Voto always refers to the reception of the sacramental effect in desire.
Trent clearly teaches that the sacramental effect of confession can be received in desire, and it uses voto precisely to teach the way in which this reception is effected. You are right that penance and baptism differ in various ways, but you are wrong that they both cannot be received in voto, and contradicted by Trent on that. They were both instituted by the remission of sins and they are therefore necessary for salvation, unlike Holy Orders or Confirmation, and for that reason God has ordained that they can be received in desire when it is perfected by charity and contrition.
We've seen the Council texts before in detail in the original Latin, and it's very clear in all and each case that three sacraments - baptism, penance and the Eucharist - according to the mind of the Council Fathers and the Church can be received in voto. Voto never refers to a mere disposition or a prerequisite as you erroneously maintain but to the reception of the sacramental effect in desire as the below makes very plain.
"verum etiam eorundem sacramentalem confessionem saltem in voto ... non quidem pro pœna æterna, quæ vel sacramento, vel sacramenti voto una cuм culpa remittitur" (but also the sacramental confession of the said sins —at least in desire ... not indeed for the eternal punishment, which is, together with the guilt, remitted, either by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament)
Again, voto always refers to the reception of the sacramental effect in desire. It never refers to a prerequisite as you erroneously claim.
"qui voto propositum illum cœlestem panem edentes ... "those to wit who eating in desire that heavenly bread"
Again, this referes to the reception of the Eucharist in desire. It doesn't mean as you would erroneously read it, to be a disposition or prerequisite to receiving the Eucharist in re properly.
"sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto," ... "without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof"
This is a clear proof that all the authorities are right about Trent and your novel interpretation of it is mistaken and should be revised. The sacramental effect of baptism can be received in voto otherwise Trent would never have used voto to describe it. In re and in voto are well known concepts in theology and refer to very specific effects.
And this sacrament of Penance is, for those who have fallen after baptism, necessary unto salvation; as baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.
Major: Penance is necessary in fact or in desire (Trent, conceded by Feeneyites)
Minor: Penance is necessary as baptism itself is necessary (Trent, above)
Conclusion: Therefore baptism too is necessary in fact or in desire.
You can attack and deride this all you want, but it stands as the teaching of Trent which you do not accept. This of course is the Church's own understanding expressed in Her canons (737) "Baptism, the gate and foundation of the Sacraments, in fact or at least in desire necessary for the salvation of all ... "
You've not addressed the below either, from your earlier reply to point 2, I gather that you didn't recall the canon I was speaking of specifically spoke of justification,
Si quis dixerit, sacramenta novæ legis non esse ad salutem necessaria, sed superflua; et sine eis aut eorum voto per solam fidem homines a Deo gratiam justificationis adipisci; licet omnia singulis necessaria non sint: anathema sit.
In virtue of this condemnation, Trent is clearly teaching here that the sacraments or the desire for them, for more than one sacrament and in the plural, effects very specifically the grace of justification. And that proves that at least two sacraments received in voto effect justification.