Thanks for the response! Would I be right to say then that the ejection of the neutron is merely an unusual way of the nucleus conserving energy whilst going down to its ground state? I'm looking for ways to keep my word count down.
You're right in that U-233 can still be used for weaponry, but of what I'm aware from my research is that the U-232 makes it much less appealing in a weapon due to a greater amount of gamma emissions than Plutonium, and the inability to chemically separate the U-232 from the U-233. Whilst you can time weapon fabrication around the decay cycle or treat workers as expendable, this is significantly less appealing than bomb fabrication using other fissile materials.
An economic cost-benefit analysis rules Uranium-233 as being a pretty awful fuel. It'd probably be easy for a terrorist cell/rogue state to try to highly enrich natural Uranium rather than deal with transmuting Thorium and then worry about copious amounts of radiation from the core.