This is a special post for quick takes by Cleo Nardo. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
I'll note that CDT and FDT prescribe identical actions against Stockfish, which is the frame of mind I had when writing.
More to your point - I'm not sure that I am describing CDT: "always choose the move that maximises your expected value (that is, p(win) + 0.5 * p(draw)), taking into account your opponent's behaviour" sounds like a decision rule that necessitates a logical decision theory, rather than excluding it?
Your point about pathological robustness is valid but I'm not sure how much this matters in the setting of chess.
Lastly, if we're using the formalisms of CDT or FDT or whatever, I think this question ceases to be particularly interesting, as these are logically omniscient formalisms - so I presume you have some point that I'm missing about logically relaxed variants thereof.