"the (subjunctive) outcome specification is more realistic" = It is more realistic to say that you will suffer a consquence from hazing your future self than from hazing the next generation.

"the output is posited to be accurate" = In Newcomb's Problem, Omega's accuracy is posited by the problem, while Omega's counterparts in other instances is taken to have whatever accuracy it does in real life.

What I am saying is that akrasia is perfectly well modeled by hyperbolic discounting, and that the fix for akrasia is simply CDT with exponential discounting.

That would be wrong though -- the same symmetry can persist through time with exponential discounting. Exponential discounting is equivalent to a period-invariant discount factor. Yet you can still find yourself wishing your previous (symmetric) self did what your current self does not wish to.

And that the other, truely Newcomb-like problems require a belief in this mysterious 'acausal influence' if you are going to 'solve' them as they are presented - as one-time decision problems.

I thought we had this discussion on the Parfitian filter article. You can have Newcomb's problem without acausal infuences: just take yourself to be the Omega where a computer program plays against you. There's no acausal information flow, yet the winning programs act isomorphically to those that "believe in" an acausal influence.