Well that might explain some of our miscommunication. I'll go back and check.

Consequences" only in a counterfactual world. . I don't see how you can call this consequentialist without streching the term to the point that it could include nearly any morality system.

This makes sense using the first definition, at least, according to TDT it does.

Both CDT and TDT compare counter-factuals, they just take their counter-factual from different points in the causal graph.

This is clearly using the first definition.

Counterfactual mugging and the ransom problem I mentioned in the great-grandparent are both cases where TDT requires you to consider consequences of counterfactuals you know didn't happen.

This only makes sense with the second, and should probably be UDT rather than TDT - the original TDT didn't get the right answer on the counterfactual mugging.