I confess, when I first wrote out the CDT calculations for Newcombe's Paradox, I assumed that the prediction 'caused' the choice, and got one-boxing as a result.

Then I got confused, because I had heard by then that CDT suggests two-boxing.

I like to say that the framework of CDT is not capable of understanding the statement of Newcomb's problem. But I'm not sure anyone agrees when I say it.