I call it "ambient control". This can work as an abstract:

You, as an agent, determine what you do, and so have the power to choose which statements about you are true. By making some statements true and not others, you influence the truth of other statements that logically depend on the statements about you. Thus, if you have preference about what should be true about the world, you can make some of those things true by choosing what to do. Theories of consequences (partially) investigate what becomes true if you make a particular decision. (Of course, you can't change what's true, but you do determine what's true, because some truths are about you.)

Longer description here. I'll likely post on some aspects of it in the future, as the idea gets further developed. There is a lot of trouble with logical strength of theories of consequences, for example. There is also some hope to unify logical and observational uncertainty here, at the same time making the decision algorithm computationally feasible (it's not part of the description linked above).