I'm highly suspicious of this paper. The ideas aren't really presented very clearly, so it's really hard to understand what the "trick" is. If you believe QM i

I'm highly suspicious of this paper. The ideas aren't really presented very clearly, so it's really hard to understand what the "trick" is. If you believe QM is true then you flat out cannot have a local hidden variable theory. One possible way to "salvage" Bell's inequality with a local hidden variable theory is to effectively cheat by tying the chance of detecting a particle to the detector parameter (like the angle of the polarizer) and then throwing out some detections (detector A found a particle but detector B didn't fire, say). This effectively inflates the numerator in the probability in favor of the correlation while deflating the denominator, effectively discarding uncorrelated pairs. From what I understand, physicists are well aware of this problem and a significant portion of the entanglement experiments are devoted to justify how they're overcoming this loophole though I'm in absolutely no position to understand or judge if they're doing it well. Maybe this is what the paper is talking about when considering a "contextual model"? If so, they don't present it in a clear or digestible way, which makes me suspicious that they're using terminology to hide something.