I'm glad that you've found an outside source. I think I understand better now what you're talking about, the process of mental impressions and reactions. I don't have Daniels book in print, but if possible could you point out that relevant bit in the online version so that I could see it in context?
I think the core of the breakdown in communication is your use of the terms nimitta and citta. As http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/b_f/citta.htm says, citta and vinnana (consciousness) can be synonyms sometimes, so I can't accuse you of misusing that. It's possible that we've been using it differently.
I have been using citta to mean the general state of the mind. I think you've been using it differently, but I'm still not clear exactly what meaning you intend. If you could find a definition that suits you and show me, I might get a better idea. If we explicitly define our terms, it might clear up some of the confusion.
As for nimitta, take a look at the definitions here and tell me if one fits what you intend your use to signify: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/n_r/nimitta.htm As far as I can tell, your usage doesn't really match up, but you can clarify if you want.
And as for nama: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/n_r/naama.htm
This term is generally used as a collective name for the 4 mental groups (arūpino khandha), viz.
mental formations (sankhāra) and
This matches what I had previously said. Nama =/= nimitta =/= citta. EDIT: Actually, for practical purposes I think it is okay for us to equate nama and citta. I tend to understand citta as more of the overall general flavour of the mind, this is how the satipatthana sutta uses it I believe (someone correct me it not), and nama refers more specifically to the various processes of the mind and not the whole. But they're similar enough that we can call them the same. The real issue is, that nimitta does not correspond to either of them. Your assertion that nimitta equals nama doesn't hold up as far as I can tell.