Call $|00\rangle=|i\rangle$ and $|11\rangle=|f\rangle$. The w.f. collapse, the "observation", happens at the trigger nuclei level, and their decays are irreversible (and, a fortiori, so is the cat's sadistic death). The live cat will never interfere with the dead cat, so it is a red herring in the problem--the very reason this paradigm is notoriously uninstructive. So you don't have a 4-state system (can't have undecayed triggers with dead cats, etc...), but could you have a 2-state system?
But even the trigger particles' decays are not a "small" unitary evolution, like an archetypal quantum flip-flop, even though they are quantum mechanical. Clearly, the decayed state will not interfere with the undecayed one, or reverse to the initial undecayed state. So you'd have a hell of a time modeling the decay unitarily.
That is, modeling the persistence amplitude
$$\langle i|U(t)|i\rangle ~~~ ?\sim ? ~~~e^{i\phi} e^{-\Gamma t/2} $$
so as to have persistence probability
$$
e^{-\Gamma t}
$$
could not work with any unitary 2×2 operator. The reason is the effective 2×2 Hamiltonian is non-hermitean.
Moreover, transition from $|f\rangle$ to $|i\rangle$ is zero, as well.
In fact, simple models of unstable quantum systems are notoriously tricky.
NB (Geeky) To see how the nohermitean Hamiltonians describing such decays arise out of larger open systems, see, e.g., Bertlmann et al 2006 or Phys Rev A73 (2006) 054101. In density matrix language, $\rho(t)=\operatorname{diag}(e^{-\Gamma t}, 1-e^{-\Gamma t})$, the purity varies with time,
$$
\operatorname{Tr} \rho(t)^2= 1- 2e^{-\Gamma t} +2e^{-2\Gamma t},
$$
going from 1 at $t=0$, to <1 for intermediate t, and back to 1 at $t=\infty$.
This cannot be unitary evolution.