Does the Pali term 'punabbhava' in the Nikāyas denote “rebirth” , “reincarnation,” or something else?

In discussions pertaining to early Buddhist doctrine, One often encounters the Pāli term punabbhava (Skt. punarbhava) within the suttas which is frequently translated as "rebirth" or "reincarnation". ( E.g natthi dāni punabbhavo’ti. ~ SN 56.11) Both English terms however carry significant metaphysical baggage, particularly implying notions of a persisting entity (atta/ātman) which the Nikāyas explicitly problematize. Modern scholarship and traditional exegetes appear divided on its interpretation. Some interpret punabbhava in line with conventional “rebirth” models, emphasizing continuity in future lives without identity.Still others suggest that punabbhava refers less to post-mortem destiny and more to moment-to-moment existential re-arising conditioned by craving. Questions for consideration:- 1. Are there any passages in the Nikāyas where punabbhava unambiguously requires a literal multi-life rebirth interpretation? 2. Conversely, are there contexts where reading it as an ongoing psychological/existential process (rather than post-mortem rebirth) better fits the textual evidence? 3. In the context of paṭicca-samuppāda, is punabbhava better understood temporally (across lifetimes) or phenomenologically (moment-to-moment arising)? 4. How do the commentaries ( e.g Aṭṭhakathā) interpret punabbhava, and should their readings be privileged in determining its meaning? 5. Is the ambiguity in punabbhava best understood as a deliberate feature of early Buddhist discourse, allowing both cosmological and phenomenological interpretations?