Board Thread:The Panopticon/@comment-43908-20150311013943/@comment-6032121-20181106215235

Ah, alright. Then are we back to the assumption that Romana must then have died in her third incarnation, for the Matrix-Romana to be a copy of Goss's Romana III? In which case, even though it's become clear that only the Matrix-Romana chose the name "Trey", she had continuity of consciousness with the original Romana with no duplicates around. So I'm okay with calling her Trey.

Provided we all agree on the above, that leaves the issue of whether Goss's Romana III/Trey is to be considered the same character as the earlier Romana III. Let me bring up what you wrote earlier, because I have found an answer to it:

NateBumber wrote: I definitely agree with you here, but that's not the case we're being presented with. Goss is pretty explicitly familiar with Cornell's Romana III, at least according to the quote in OP!

Well, he knows, but… let me quote from Bubblecamera on  Thread:144117:

Bubblecamera wrote: James Goss said "there have been other future Romanadvoratrelundars (remember Paul Cornell’s brilliantly glacial flapper?)" in October's Vortex when talking about Trey.

So, the author who created Trey considers the official Romana III to be an "other" Romana. I think that's enough to say they're different incarnations, similar though they definitely are.

And Bubble really put it best. Goss may know about the E.D.A. Romana III, but he explicitly refers to her as "another future Romanadvoratrelundar" in relation to his Romana-III-whose-Matrix-self-calls-herself-Trey. The authorial intent couldn't be clearer that those are different characters, just as surely as in my "1965 Master vs. Delgado Master" thought-experiment.

That leaves us with the question of what naming scheme to adopt. We could use dab terms by first appearance, or we could decide to refer to Goss's Romana III as "Trey" to distinguish her from Cornell's Romana III.