Can nimitta be understood as “internal representation”?

I'm writing an article comparing Buddhist accounts of perception with modern concepts in robotics (autonomous driving) and cognitive science (e.g., Andy Clark’s Surfing Uncertainty). I am particularly interested in the term *nimitta*, which Andriy Volkov describes as a “defining characteristic” of an object rather than the object itself (I'm not talking about *nimitta* that arises in the context of *kasina* meditation). Note: I've started to write up a document on nimitta where I try to be specific about the term and my intended use. I'll reference this discussion in the document. My questions are: 1. Does nimitta ever refer to the object itself, or only to its facets or identifying features? 2. Would it be accurate, within the framework of Buddhist philosophy, to describe nimitta as an “internal representation”?