No, because the assumptions I made become less true the more rounds are done (maybe they're not even accurate enough after one round). The set of all possible images of SHA256^N becomes smaller for larger N until it converges to a fixed set (which is probably very large). Then SHA-256 is a permutation (one-to-one mapping) on this set. (This is true for every function from a space to itself).
But this is probably because I assumed that each round had its own independent random oracle. The results may be different for a fixed function like SHA-256.
Right, this is because of the changing function, with some support from the continuity approximation.
Let's go to the extreme: Let's say after several rounds we end up with 2 elements, so k=2/N. Then after another round we should end up with 2-2/N) elements which is a bit less, and with additional rounds we converge to 0.
Of course, we cannot actually have a noninteger number of elements. But that's not a problem when we change the function each time. Most functions will map 2 elements to 2 elements; but after enough rounds we eventually stumble upon a function that maps both elements to one.
With a consistent function, this can't happen; either it sends them to 2 elements (which must be the same ones) or it doesn't. If it does then it remains at 2 elements forever without decreasing further.
And this doesn't have to happen when we're at 2 elements; after enough rounds, we've weeded out all elements that are not in the function's cycles, and what we're left with we're stuck with forever. And the set of cycle elements can be very large, though I have no idea just how large.