Are there practical differences among believers in the various approaches to free choice?

From the determinist's perspective, we are robots. We run software like a computer runs software. From the determinist's perspective, there may also be inherent uncertainty in the world that stems from the fact that the numbers in the world of physical laws are not precise to an infinite number of digits after the point (regardless of quantum mechanics). Then it would not be correct to say “movie”. Because the future is unknown in such a situation.

Regarding justice, the Torah commands tzaddik tzaddik tird'yh tidaf, which is more than a permission given to a doctor to heal. It is a command.
And we should not take into account “justice in the deep sense” For there is a reason for this: Do not show partiality
We see this prominently in the law: For a man will have a rebellious and rebellious son who will not listen to the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and they will discipline him and will not listen to them, that is, if the usual techniques do not work (discipline him), this is enough and we should not begin to consider psychological philosophies.
Because the commandment is to judge the people and not some deep psychology at the level of the individual.

I didn't understand the comment that the behavior of the dramaticist is not justified. In my opinion, it's exactly the opposite.

The dramaticist is the one who can justify the behavior to the end. To list all the reasons that led him to behave this way.

Unlike the free chooser, he will ultimately have to claim “That's what came to my mind” and that's it. Without any justification.

Such an unusual message certainly requires a response. In B”F you make strong statements (like your nickname), and I have nothing to answer for that (in many cases this is nonsense, by the way. Strongness is not an argument). But here you suddenly ask, and that already requires consideration.
A reason for behavior is not a reason but a purpose. The computer calculates some calculation because it was programmed that way. This is not a reason for what it does, it is a reason. I want to make an appointment with a friend to do something together. We can say that the meeting is for the purpose of making an appointment, and that is a reason. We can say that the meeting is for the purpose of making an appointment, and that is a reason (or purpose). For a determinist, there is no distinction between a reason and a purpose.

Now you've actually caused me more confusion. You've introduced the timeline as a differentiating factor.

Purposeful attribution can also be attributed to a computer, since the software contains commands designed to bring it to a certain state. (For example, if the web page doesn't load, the computer will try again several times until it succeeds, and then those who don't know what's going on behind the scenes will say that there was a purpose to load the web page).
From a physical point of view, it's pretty clear that in these things everything happens based on the past. (And I didn't find any need to differentiate between a person who plans his steps and a lion who plans his steps to capture a deer). Did you actually claim otherwise just now?

(In terms of language, to my understanding, a “reason” is some explanation of an act or speech in such a way that it will convince another person of the “logic” of the matter and make him or her calm. And a reason acceptable to one person may be unacceptable to another.)

And instead of resolving my misunderstanding, you only increased it by adding another factor that seemed unrelated to me.

So I will ask this.

What is the difference between a world in which a person has free choice and a world in which they do not? For the sake of illustration, let's assume that from this moment on, God suddenly grants everyone free choice. What will change? Will brain researchers discover something that has changed? Will human behavior change? Consciousness? The way of thinking? What exactly will be the difference.

You are mixing things up again. A computer has no purposes because a computer is a physical being. The purposes are inserted into it by the programmer, who is a person who has goals and purposes. A computer only has reasons. When you ask why a computer does something, you mean to ask why the programmer programmed a signal in such and such a way. Because from the computer's perspective, it does something because there is a voltage drop that caused it to move electrons. That's all. Therefore, this example is further evidence of my statement that only humans have reasoning and purpose, not the dumb.
Something will definitely change. If we do not have a choice, we will not act for a purpose except for a reason. Every movement of an electron will be the result of a prior physical force, and every force will be the result of a prior physical mechanism. And when a person has a choice, there are electrons that start a causal chain not from a physical force. I explained this in detail in my books on the science of freedom, and more briefly in an article here on the site:
https://mikyab.net/%d7%9b%d7%aa%d7%91%d7%99%d7%9d/%d7%9e%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%9d/%d7%9e%d7%91%d7%98-%d7%a9%d7%99%d7%98%d7%aa%d7%99-%d7%a2%d7%9c-%d7%97%d7%95%d7%a4%d7%a9-%d7%94%d7%a8%d7%a6%d7%95%d7%9f

I wrote explicitly: “Then those who don't know what's going on behind the scenes will say that there was a purpose”.
That is. Of course there is no purpose. Only those who don't know how things happen attribute a purpose to a computer.

And how do things happen? According to physical laws.
Hence. That we don't need anything new in man. And with man, we can say just as with a computer that the attribution of purpose stems from a lack of knowledge. Just like attributing purpose to a computer or a lion chasing a deer.

And also with a computer and the person who wrote the software for it. There doesn't have to be a person there to write the software. Such programs can develop on their own, in an evolutionary way. And many programs today are like that.

You can say anything. So what? You asked what the difference is between a reason and a justification, and I explained. You can of course be a determinist. What you cannot do is claim that it is necessary (and in my opinion even that it is reasonable). The very concept of justification in my sense cannot exist in your worldview. Kitamo, even if you think it is an illusion, is itself an argument against you.
But I think I have made my position clear, and the voter will vote.