Ah! Edited version: “there’s no *obvious* distribution p(a,x)” (which could have been “natural distribution” or “canonical distribution”). The point is that you need more information than what should be sufficient (the effect of the action) to do evidential decision theory.
I agree I am quite confused by EDT
OTOH you can have a distribution over actions that have never been done
Ah! Edited version: “there’s no *obvious* distribution p(a,x)” (which could have been “natural distribution” or “canonical distribution”). The point is that you need more information than what should be sufficient (the effect of the action) to do evidential decision theory.