No free will, but agency

I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think I've finally stopped trying to rescue free will.

I don't believe in it. I'm pretty close to a hard determinist: if the causes were identical, the outcome would be identical. I don't see where an uncaused chooser fits into that. I actually tried to solve the problem the other way round at first. At one point I was effectively looking for an uncaused cause. I've abandoned that.

But here's the bit I'm now much more interested in: I don't think getting rid of free will gets rid of agency.

My beliefs have causes. My values have causes. My memories have causes. My deliberation has causes. My choice has causes. But those things aren't somehow irrelevant because they have causes. They're the organisation through which the choice happens.

And then something even more interesting happens. I act. The action changes my circumstances. Those circumstances change me. The changed me acts differently.

So I end up with something like:

evaluation → possibility → choice → action → consequence → reorganisation

The choice doesn't break causation. It changes the organisation within causation.

That's where I get agency.

Agency is organised participation in causation.

I'm not sure I'd even call myself a compatibilist, because I'm not trying to redefine free will until it becomes compatible with determinism. I'm saying something slightly different: maybe we don't have free will. Maybe we have something else that we've been confusing with it.

The interesting question for me isn't “Could exactly the same me, with exactly the same causes, have done otherwise?” Under determinism, I'd say no.

It's whether the organisation I am now can become different, such that a differently organised me would act differently.

I think it obviously can. I learn something. I change a habit. I reconsider a belief. I change my circumstances. I build a new relationship. I make a commitment. Those things change the organisation from which the next action emerges.

So that's where I've landed:

No free will. Yes, agency.

But I'm curious where people think this falls down.

If agency is just another word for causation, what exactly is missing? And if evaluation, deliberation and reorganisation genuinely change the organisation producing the next action, why isn't that enough to call it agency?