Okay, @Timb, I checked it out and no.
In compatibilism, there is still universal causal determinism, even though you may choose (one source used the example of jumping into a swimming pool or being pushed in) but a thing still happens.
I just made this very crude drawing of what is inside my head. I have no idea if this is a philisophical concept or not; it’s simply something that occurred to me back in the 1980s!
So, we have Bill, Dill and Phil. What will they do in the future?
Bill is an athletic guy with a high IQ, raised in a high-income but dysfunctional home. Because of his IQ and wealth, he has more options than many people do. He may choose to attend a tech school or an Ivy League, he may own a bank, he may compete in the Olympics. He can afford to have lots of kids. But, he might also start a cult or kill himself at 22. He could never rob a bank, however.
Phil is of average intelligence from a lower-class family. His options are fewer. He might join Bill’s cult if Bill starts one. He might have illegitimate kids with 4 women, kill someone in a bar fight or join the Navy and kill someone there. But he can’t go to Yale or own a bank. He’s not smart enough. And he isn’t athletic enough for the Olympics.
All have freedom to make choices, but within certain parameters. The choices they make depend on childhood experiences, biochemistry, what other people come into their life and when, etc. The future isn’t predetermined, but choices are limited.