Congratulations!
Just a quick note on another possible way to present this idea. A few years ago I realized that the simple subset of UDT can be formulated as a certain kind of single player game. It seems like the most natural way to connect UDT to standard terminology, and it's very crisp mathematically. Then one can graduate to the modal version which goes a little deeper and is just as crisp, and decidable to boot. That's the path my dream paper would take, if I didn't have a job and a million other responsibilities :-/
What would be required for UDT to be written up fully? And what is missing between FDT (in the Death in Damascus problem) and UDT?
My paper "Anthropic decision theory for self-locating beliefs", based on posts here on Less Wrong, has been published as a Future of Humanity Institute tech report. Abstract:
Most of these ideas are also explained in this video.
To situate Anthropic Decision Theory within the UDT/TDT family: it's basically a piece of UDT applied to anthropic problems, where the UDT approach can be justified by using generally fewer, and more natural, assumptions than UDT does.