Brock's essay on free will is really quite good and well referenced. Basically his elaborate Turing model is just a restatement of the Book of Life conundrum. In a determinate universe, a Book of Life exists and with free will, a person looks up a future choice and then chooses differently, which means there is no determinism after all.
I really liked that word neurophenomenology. Using such a word is a key tell that this essay reduces to a simple phrase. That is, free choice either exists or does not exist, but the moral outcome is the same.
What Brock does not mention at all is the free choice between two equivalent outcomes, for example, the free choice of free choice. In other words, Brock's free choice between two equivalent outcomes clearly cannot be conscious because reason can only equivocate, not decide. However, the conscious mind does decide and reasons it was because the free choice made no difference.
This free choice is then necessarily unpredictable but still subject to quantum phase noise as is all neuron action potentials. In fact, free choice is what makes consciousness the hard problem that many say that consciousness is. While people argue endlessly about the nature of consciousness, people either freely choose to believe in free choice or freely choose to believe in the illusion of free choice. Since either free choice results in the same moral outcomes, there is no difference, just disagreement.
Consciousness is then simply a result of making free choices between otherwise equivalent outcomes.
