Similar delay times τ d are obtained for all three TDDFT methods, indicating similar reaction pathways towards the MECP(C 2 C 3 ) seam. However, the time constant τ e is 30% smaller at the SF-BH&HLYP level as compared to the two LR-TDDFT methods, the latter of which are quite similar. This is likely due to the peaked topography near the MECP(C 2 C 3 ) seam that is predicted by SF-BH&HLYP, whereas the LR-TDDFT methods afford sloped CXs due to lack of proper coupling between S 0 and S 1 as discussed in Section IV B. Note that a peaked CX usually facilitates more efficient transitions than a sloped CX.