I'm not convinced that there is a single "way" one should expect to wake up in the morning. If we're talking about things like observer-moments and exotic theories of identity, I don't think we can reliably communicate by analogy to mundane situations, since our intuitions might differ in subtle ways that don't matter in those situations.
For instance, should I believe that I will wake up because that will lead me to make decisions that lead to world-states I prefer, or should I expect to wake up because it is true that I will probably wake up? If the latter, does that just mean that there will exist an observer-moment in my bed tomorrow that is a close match to my current self, or am I actually expecting to be the same as that observer-moment in some important sense that that would not apply to other observer-moments in the same epistemic state? Different answers to these questions will mostly add up to similar bedtime behavior, but they diverge if the situation gets far out of distribution.
If I just care about doing things that help similar observer-moments, the assumption that "I" am distributed across multiple worlds doesn't matter much. I'll just act under the assumption that I'll live another day (or eventually be revived), and in worlds I don't, there aren't any observer-moments I care about to complain I guessed wrong. In that sense, I "should" expect to continue to exist (But if you're selfish enough, this means you "should" expect to be immortal even in a single, deterministic universe. When you inevitably die, you aren't around to regret your expectation!) But if you only "should" expect things as much as they are likely to actually happen, being distributed over multiple universes is a big issue, since it is likely that in any given time period you will actually die in some universes AND actually survive in others. You could decide to weight your belief according to how many universes you expect to survive in, but only if you have a measure over universes. (this is also an issue for the first kind of "should"; once you decide to act like you'll live, you might find yourself facing decisions that incline you to weigh one set of worlds against another.)
Epistemic Status: ~70% confidence, hoping to get some feedback.
I'm going to argue that if we accept three controversial (but not outlandish) assumptions to be true, then subjective death (the cessation of conscious experiences identifying themselves as "you") is impossible. I will keep this post as concise as possible.
Here are the three assumptions:
Given assumption 1, somewhere "out there" (e.g. in a different Everett branch), there will be worlds that contain "revival simulations" of you (simulations of you being revived and regaining consciousness after your death).
Given assumption 2, these simulations will be conscious and have subjective experience.
Given assumption 3, these revival simulations of you are technically "you" since "you" of this instant is a particular observer-moment that is being computed in a multitude of quantum branches or universes. Your identity is transmitted through the continuity of similar observer-moments since these simulations possess the same memories as you before you died (and hence connect with your last observer moment).
Similar to how the quantum immortality argument says that even though your "reality measure" is reduced after an experiment, you are guaranteed to survive from your perspective because you cannot subjectively experience the branches where you die. Here the argument is that when you die, there will be quantum branches or other universes computing observer-moments of "you" experiencing a revival. Hence you should always expect to be revived after death.
These conclusions sound pretty crazy to me intuitively, but if one accepts the assumptions (whether or not those assumptions are true is outside the scope of this post), these conclusions feel quite straightforward.