Imagine you're watching two different security cameras in a building. One camera covers a single room — it can tell you if that room's lights flickered. The other is a master monitor that shows every room simultaneously, and it catches interference patterns between rooms that no single-room camera could ever detect. This paper proves that the two standard definitions of "dynamical quantum phase transition" are exactly this kind of split: one is a local-room question, the other is a whole-building question, and no amount of stitching local footage together recovers the global signal. The committed claim: order-parameter DQPTs and return-rate DQPTs are separated by a fundamental information-theoretic boundary in discrete phase space. Order-parameter transitions live entirely in local reduced states and require zero quasiprobability negativity — they are, in a precise sense, classical-looking. Return-rate transitions, by contrast, can encode information absent from every proper subsystem. The two are not merely different operationally; they are different in kind. The technical machinery is the discrete Wigner function on odd-dimensional qudits. Mzaouali decomposes the Loschmidt return rate into two additive costs: a "support cost" measuring how much of phase space the evolved state has vacated, and an "interference cost" measuring destructive quantum cancellation among the remaining contributions. For stabilizer returns — states that are efficiently simulable classically — this decomposition is exact. The key insight is that the interference cost can selectively cancel specific branches of competing block returns, reversing their ranking and delaying the transition. The demonstration vehicle is a qutrit (d=3) Potts chain. Unlike the qubit Ising chain that dominates the DQPT literature, qutrits give a richer discrete phase space with three competing magnetization sectors. The numerics show that selective cancellation between sectors can delay or reorder which sector "wins" at the return-rate level — an effect invisible to the order parameter. The paper also constructs an exact analytical control: a thermodynamic-limit return cusp that has zero Wigner negativity at the crossing point, proving that a genuine return singularity can exist without any quantum interference contribution at the critical time. On the integrity front, this is primarily an analytical/mathematical physics paper supplemented by exact numerics on small chains (the Potts model). There is no experimental validation, no pre-registration, and no code release mentioned. The results are internally consistent — the stabilizer decomposition is exact by construction, and the Potts chain numerics serve as illustration rather than proof. The analytical control (zero-negativity cusp) is the strongest result because it's a constructive existence proof. The broader field fight here is whether DQPTs are a unified phenomenon or a family of loosely related concepts wearing the same name. The community has long noticed that order-parameter and return-rate DQPTs don't always coincide, but explanations have been phenomenological. This paper offers a structural reason rooted in quantum information theory: they probe different layers of the state's phase-space anatomy. If this framing sticks, it reframes how theorists design experiments to detect DQPTs — you need to know which kind you're looking for and what measurement resources that demands. The natural next step is scaling to larger systems and connecting to experimental platforms. Trapped-ion and superconducting-circuit experiments can now probe Loschmidt echoes in chains of 20-50 qubits/qudits. The question is whether the selective cancellation effects demonstrated analytically in small qutrit chains survive finite-size scaling and decoherence. The author likely didn't run noisy simulations because the paper's contribution is conceptual/mathematical — the clean decomposition is the point, not its robustness to noise. That robustness question is the obvious follow-up.
