Edit: Probably skip to the ***, I suspect my original writing was unclear.

This seems to use two different definitions of utility. If utility is defined as direct perceptual experience, the argument fails. If utility is defined more broadly, it does not. If my current utility is determined entirely perceptually, it does not follow that I should try to assess my future utility more holistically.

The real question seems to be whether the broader definition of utility actually accounts for how we feel, how we live life, or what we actually maximize for.

***Edit: I may have expressed my point poorly. Or I may be making a bad point. Let me try again.

I simply fail to see how this disproves or invalidates PDU. If PDU is correct, then the larger box in the second diagram is not valid input into a utility function. Obviously, if you allowed the larger box to count as input in the utility function, then, yes, PDU is incorrect under that condition. But PDU seems to be defined as the larger box not counting, so this is trivial.

This is not to say PDU is in any sense necessary or preferable, but I just don't see where PDU gets refuted. It seems to define a domain for a utility function. I don't see how domains can be universally refuted.

A utility function could operate off of the number of paperclips perceived to be in one's field of vision, and it would be a perfectly coherent utility function that doesn't really care about the outside universe.