What's wrong with sticking with "what ought to be done" as formulation?

I claim that I ought to act in such a way as achieves the "best" outcome,

Meaning others shouldn't? Your use of the "I" formulation is making your theory unclear.

I claim that this punishableness is not the same as the rightness that the actions of moral agents have, because it includes things like "he didn't know any better" and "can we really expect people to...",

They seem different to you because you are a consequentialist. Consequentialist good and bad outcomes can;t be directly transalted in praiseworthiness and blamewoorthiness because they are too hard to predict.

So, anyways, this is all a long widned way of saying that when deciding what to do, I hold myself to a much more demanding standard than I use when judging the actions of others.

I don't see why. Do you think you are much better at making predictions?