From the original paper: >Analysing the experiment under this presumption, we find that one agent, upon observing a particular measurement outcome, must conclu

From the original paper: >Analysing the experiment under this presumption, we find that one agent, upon observing a particular measurement outcome, must conclude that another agent has predicted the opposite outcome with certainty. The agents’ conclusions, although all derived within quantum theory, are thus inconsistent. This indicates that quantum theory cannot be extrapolated to complex systems, at least not in a straightforward manner. It really sounds to me that what they're saying is that some phenomena can be described multiple ways. And in particular, it is likely to explain phenomena consistently as X in one setting and Y in another. This seems akin to the concept of two strings (A and B) being hashed to the same value; the creator of the hash had one value (A) and an observer has a rainbow table that believes the value is different (B) and both are right, but the observer is not able to understand the creator's intention. Is this analogy roughly correct? And if so, why is this so darn surprising?