Fig. represents a more complicated nonadiabatic scenario in which the fulvene molecule undergoes a periodic (every ∼ 10 -20 fs) and extended encounter with an S0/S1 CI directly linked to the stretching of the C-CH3 stretching mode. This is similar to the Tully model #3 which exhibits a region of strong and extended coupling followed by branching and recrossing of the reflected wavepacket. In this case, the dTSH approach (Fig. ) fails to capture the AIMS dynamics at any point in the nonadiabatic dynamics, overestimating the AIMS results by more than 25%. However, dTSH does capture the qualitative trends in the population dynamics. Fig. and Fig. show the γ-SQC-∆ and spin-LSC approaches, respectively, both of which closely follow the AIMS result but neither are able to capture the fine structure of the population near 10 fs nor at 28 fs. dTSH, however, is able to find the fine structure at 10 fs, even though the overall resulting population is not correct after the event. This points to the fact that the dTSH result includes the forces stemming from a single adiabatic surface at a time and not its mean-field surface as is the case for both spin-LSC and γ-SQC-∆. Finally, the spin-PLDM result shows population dynamics very similar to dTSH and overestimates the population of the excited state at almost all times. Further, spin-PLDM is not able to capture the fine structure of the population at 10 fs. However, like all the methods presented, spin-PLDM does capture the general physics of the fulvene nonadiabatic dynamics.