I see no difference on the outbound leg (between the CMIF method and my method) at all. The outbound leg will be exactly the same for ANY simultaneity method that is causal (and the CMIF method and my method are both causal). Any causal simultaneity method must simply use the time-dilation equation (TDE) to determine the age correspondence between the two twins on the outbound leg, because the traveler MAY decide to not change his velocity at the "turnaround". The age correspondence has to be the same on the outbound leg outbound leg as for the case where the twins aren't real twins, but where both were born at the same instant when their perpetually inertial (different) mothers happened to momentarily pass each other. The instantaneous velocity change by the traveler at the origin in the "real twins" case has no effect on the correspondence between their ages, because the distance between the twins is zero when the velocity change occurs. There is no age-correspondence effect for a co-located velocity change, in both the CMIF method and in my method. (The "disagreement interval" (DI) in my method, when their separation is zero, has zero length, so he agrees with his PIO on the entire outbound leg). (Recall that the amount of his ageing during the DI is just how much he ages during the transit of a pulse from her to him; when they are co-located, that time interval is zero.) The age correspondence IS different on the outbound leg for the Dolby&Gull method and for the Minguzzi method, but they are both non-causal: they both say that the EFFECT of the instantaneous velocity change happens well BEFORE the velocity changes. In fact, in the Minguzzi method, the effect happens as soon as the traveling twin leaves the origin ... his ACD on the outbound leg has a slope of 1.0, NOT 1/gamma. In the D&G method, the ACD starts out obeying the TDE (and has an initial slope of 1/gamma), but suddenly increases the slope well before the velocity change occurs.