This is not a deductively valid line of reasoning.
Because:
You've made the assertion that "seclusion from sensory objects" is equivalent to "no contact at the sense bases". These are quite different conceptually though superficially similar. You've also made the same assertion with perceptions. You have reasons for equating these two quite different terms and that's where you've used induction to do so,
Given that the terms kama in plural and singular carry implicit connotations of desire for the five sense objects and also becoming in the sensual realm, and that vivicca means something closer to aloofness or separation, The term most likely means, well, exactly what it says: seclusion from sensuality. Jumping to the conlusion that it means "no contact at the 5 senses" requires a significant amount of stretching and I must say the support that you've given for this view is weak at best and directly contradicted in other places in the sutta pitaka.