Look below the fold for the answer.
There have been 107 responses to yesterday's survey, but since I'm too cheap to "upgrade" my Survey Monkey account, I get to see stats on only the first 100. So don't bother voting any more.
At any rate, there was a significant majority of respondents who voted "No." Specifically, 62%, with 38% responding "Yes." I suppose I could have added a "Not sure" option, or a "degrees of confidence" meter, but I didn't.
From the few comments that came in as well on Flickers of Freedom, perhaps some important details from the prompt were missing. I threw in the "drunk" comment only as a (very minor) joke, not anything that should be thought to undermine Max's reliability at replacing intentions (which he can do easily and always successfully and by whatever means you're happy with); it was only a way to explain his being mistaken over the identification of the relevant intention.
Here was the point: manipulation cases work on our intuitions typically by having some external manipulator replace one intention with a very different sort of intention. I was wondering if people thought, then, that it was the manipulation itself that undermined attributability, rather than the content of that intention. What was especially interesting about my case, I thought, was that Max was guided by precisely the same sort of considerations by which I was guided, namely, the reasons there were in favor of punching (although this might not have come out clearly enough in the prompt). If what guided me in the formation of some intention also guided Max in the intention he implants in me, and those intentions have identical content, then why wouldn't the subsequent intention be attributable to me? Apparently, though, many people think otherwise: the manipulation alone is sufficient to undermine attributability. I guess I am a bit surprised by this result, although again, it may also be a product of insufficient clarity in the prompt.
Thanks to all who participated.