In Causality, Pearl writes (sect. 14. page 26) "In this book, we shall express preference toward Laplace's quasi-deterministic conception of causality and will use it [...] the Laplacian conception is more in tune with human intuition. The few esoteric quantum mechanical experiments that conflict with the predictions of the Laplacian conception evoke surprise and disbelief, and they demand

that physicists give up deeply entrenched intuitions about locality and causality (Maudlin 1994). Our objective is to preserve, explicate, and satisfy - not destroy - those intuitions."

This seems to flat out contradict established quantum mechanics results, as he admits. Based on my understanding of his framework (which is likely incomplete) and of quantum mechanics (which is rusty), giving up counterfactual definiteness https://www.jstor.org/stable/186879 would make Pearl-style causal reasoning impossible.

By the end of 2024 will I find (in the literature or otherwise) an extension of Pearl's causality that is compatible with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics AND will I be able to understand it to my satisfaction?

Subjective judgment, so I will not bet.