Computational modeling study reveals temporal ordering and symmetry dynamics in the Corona Identity Transition Model, suggesting that event timing governs upstream transition geometries.
The CITM Temporal Dynamics Extension v0.1 is a computational and mathematical extension of the canonical Corona Identity Transition Model (CITM) v1.0.0. The extension formalizes temporal structure at a single upstream transition interface, S2 → S2′, without modifying the canonical CITM identity–state–fate architecture. The framework treats timing as a structured variable rather than a scalar parameter and decomposes temporal structure into three components: Individual timing → temporal overlap → temporal ordering. A nested model hierarchy, M0 → M1 → M2 → M3/M3.1, progressively introduces individual timing, exchange-symmetric temporal interaction, and exchange-antisymmetric ordering structure. Historical M3 numerical evidence is retained as recovered numerical evidence with its executable source unrecovered. It is associated with a derivative-based ordering formulation. The current M3.1 implementation is a new reproducible computational generation based on a distinct causal-memory ordering operator. The historical M3 and current M3.1 operators are explicitly not treated as identical. The temporal response surface is decomposed into exchange-symmetric and exchange-antisymmetric components: Y = Y_sym + Y_asym. The computational experiments demonstrate the internal mathematical behavior of the proposed temporal architecture, including timing-dependent landscapes, exchange symmetry, exchange asymmetry, and reproducible numerical decomposition. The module is explicitly a computational proof-of-concept. It does not constitute experimental validation, does not provide empirically estimated biological transition rates, and does not claim biological efficacy of any intervention. The present work establishes the upstream architectural relation: Temporal Structure → Transition Geometry → Fate Geometry. Downstream competing-fate dynamics are retained as a future extension.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yuji Marutani (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: