Hi Jason
For me this whole thing was never that interesting from a theoretical standpoint, so grain of salt with my two cents. But experientially what I can say is the more clear the open impermanent nature of phenomena (thoughts, feelings, sensations, intentions and outer objects...) the more clear it is that things in general don't exist in a solid fixed way. This appears true for inner and outer phenomena.
Phenomena influence each other in a vast web of inter-causation, reality is apparently non-linear. Some phenomena which we label intentions, actions, choices etc. include an awareness of this fact of influence, built right in to those phenomena. Yet intentions, actions, choices also arise and pass in an open-ended way. When mind is hampered by the belief in a solid seperate self it can attribute that to any combination of factors (thoughts, feelings, intentions, sensations). Tagging that imaginary solid seperate self to intentions gives the felt sense of being an Agent.
So intentions without an intend-er are what is experientially evident (to me) when open impermanence is clearly evident. I see no contradiction whatsoever, in experience. There are open impermanent choices and open impermanent consequences which become causes for further reflection and future choices. How simple is that lol?

On the other, non-experiential hand, both the theory that everything is the result of fixed causes (determinism) and the theory that there is a solid seperate stable Agent which somehow stands behind the impermanent choices which arise and pass have always struck me as good examples of bad philosophy ;)