Keep in mind that generally I advocate "Explore multiple approaches simultaneously" and "Trust your intuitions, but don't waste too much time arguing for them". Sometimes I do feel obligated to explain why I'm not as excited about some research direction as might be expected given my interests (and in the case of "probabilistic reflection" there's the additional issue that I'm having trouble making intuitive sense of what the formalism is saying), but I don't mean to discourage other people from exploring their ideas if they still think it's worthwhile after hearing what I have to say.

Don't you think that others working on Sleeping Beauty, absent-minded driver, Parfit's hitchhiker etc. helped pave the way for UDT by providing a list of questions for UDT to answer?

I'm certainly not disputing that having those questions available was helpful, but just want to point out that there seems to be a danger where people focus on these relatively "crisp" problems too much, think they have solutions, and then argue over them endlessly, where they might have made better progress by zooming out and looking at the bigger picture. If you consider the dozens of academic papers published on the Sleeping Beauty, I don't think the majority of them (i.e., beyond the first few) can be said to have helped pave the way for UDT.