Everettian theory as pure wave mechanics plus a no-collapse probability postulate

Proposed derivations of the Born rule for Everettian theory are controversial. I argue that they are unnecessary but may provide justification for a simplified version of the Principal Principle. It's also unnecessary to replace Everett's idea that a subject splits in measurement contexts with the idea that subjects have linear histories which partition: Deutsch 1985, 2011; Saunders and Wallace 2008; Saunders 2010; Wallace 2012, Chapter 7; Wilson 2013, forthcoming. Linear histories were introduced to provide a concept of pre-measurement uncertainty and I explain why pre-measurement uncertainty for splitting subjects is after all coherent, though not necessary because Everett's original fission interpretation of branching can arguably be rendered coherent without it, via reference to Vaidman 1998; Tappenden 2011; Sebens and Carroll 2018; McQueen and Vaidman 2019. A deterministic and probabilistic quantum mechanics can be made intelligible by replacing the standard collapse postulate with a no-collapse postulate which identifies objective probability with relative branch weight, supplemented by the simplified Principal Principle and some revisionary metaphysics.
Comment: 29 pages, to be published in Synthese