The title is highly unspecific. "Using non-unitary time evolution for a computation?" is not really a question. It says nothing about what is actually been asked. I also don't really understand where the "computation" bit comes from when reading the question.
Notation is better than the previous iteration of the question (which, btw, why did you not simply edit the other question in the first place?), but still, the presentation could be improved. The main missing thing is why one should care about this sort of thing in the first place.
You were already given other pointers/suggestions/criticisms in the comments of the question. Not directly addressing those by editing the question accordingly makes people think that you are not willing to accept constructive criticism and act on it. That, generally speaking, regardless of the merits of the comments themselves, tends to erode people's "good faith assumptions", which significantly increases the likelihood of getting downvotes, votes to close, and such.
Case in point, you were asked "Why are you doing this?", and you answer in the comments with "As the title says: Using non-unitary time evolution for a computation?", which clarifies next to nothing, and might be construed as condescending.
On a more general note, in my opinion, there are some types of questions for which Stack Exchange is simply not a great venue. You tend to ask questions about rather involved situations without giving sufficiently strong reasons why one should care about it. Such questions are imo rather hard to be put into a form that is well-fit for Stack Exchange. It would be much better to break up what you don't understand or find unclear about whatever problem you are working on, and ask more specific questions about specific points that might be of more general interest.