If I were to review this paper, my critique would focus on this little paragraph: > We note that, although Bell’s mathematical machinery [9] is used to show th

If I were to review this paper, my critique would focus on this little paragraph: > We note that, although Bell’s mathematical machinery [9] is used to show the result, the set of assumptions considered here — and therefore the conclusions that can be drawn from a violation of inequality (2) — are different from those in standard Bell tests. That statement contains a lot of handwavium and in fact the interpretation of the results depends a lot on, if this experiment may be interpreted as another test on locality. Which I strongly presume, it does.