CDT doesn’t assign credences to outcomes in the way you are suggesting.
One way to think about it is as follows: Basically CDT says that you should use your prior probability in a state (not an outcome) and update this probability only in those cases where the decision being considered causally influences the state. So whatever prior credence you had in the “box contains $M” state, given that the decision doesn’t causally influence the box contents, you should have that same credence regardless of decision and same for the other state.
There are so many different ways of outlining CDT that I don’t intend to discuss why the above account doesn’t describe each of these versions of CDT but some equivalent answer to that above will apply to all such accounts.
CDT doesn’t assign credences to outcomes in the way you are suggesting.
One way to think about it is as follows: Basically CDT says that you should use your prior probability in a state (not an outcome) and update this probability only in those cases where the decision being considered causally influences the state. So whatever prior credence you had in the “box contains $M” state, given that the decision doesn’t causally influence the box contents, you should have that same credence regardless of decision and same for the other state.
There are so many different ways of outlining CDT that I don’t intend to discuss why the above account doesn’t describe each of these versions of CDT but some equivalent answer to that above will apply to all such accounts.