The hypothesis is overreaching - that you can somehow "disprove" nonlocality.At least, according to this paper - http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0206/0206190.pdf - nonlocality isn't real in QM.
When you say "For the experiment to mean what he says" what are you taking it to say? I am presuming the lack of a "state reduction". On that presumption I would say that a "state reduction" is itself an "interpretation" rather than "what QM says". QM does not care what interpretation anybody chooses, state reduction or not. Hence, since it is itself merely an interpretation, it cannot in itself contradict QM. That the paper failed to make a reasonable argument is immaterial to that point.The hypothesis is overreaching - that you can somehow "disprove" nonlocality.
But as is mentioned, the experimental support is a joke. QM properly predicts the actual results of all spacelike separated experiments. You can call that proof of nonlocality or not, depending on your interpretation. For the experiment to mean what he says it does, it would need to contradict QM.