You're still treating the ethics as a separate step from the math.

Yes, more or less. I do not rule out returning to math once the injunction is triggered either to reassess the injunction or to consider an exception. That is the point. This is not the same principle as 'allow for the chance that I am crazy'.

I'm arguing that the probability of making a mistake in your reasoning should be part of the multiplication: you should be able to assign an exact numerical confidence to your own sanity, and evaluate the expected utility of various courses of action, including but not limited to asking a friend whether you're crazy.

If I could do this reliably then I would not need to construct ethical injunctions to protect me from myself. I do not believe you are correctly applying the referenced concepts.