This doesn't seem like an actual solution to the problem as normally stated. The point of Newcomb's problem is that if someone makes decisions on the basis of accurate prediction of your choices, you should commit to making the choice that gives you the maximum payout.
In other words, the problem as stated is that if you choose both boxes there will be nothing in the opaque box, and if you choose one box there will be a large payout in the opaque box.
Redefining the problem to say "they've already made the decision and filled the box or boxes, so your choice won't change the outcome" is sidestepping the point of the problem.
In other words, the problem as stated is that if you choose both boxes there will be nothing in the opaque box, and if you choose one box there will be a large payout in the opaque box.
Redefining the problem to say "they've already made the decision and filled the box or boxes, so your choice won't change the outcome" is sidestepping the point of the problem.