I am hoping it may be helpful to separate Bell's logic from Bell's mathematics https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=406372. Understanding one may better help us understand the other. Thank you Bill. In the language that is evolving at "Understanding Bell's mathematics", https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=406372, we have Alice with outcomes G or R (detector oriented a), Bob with outcomes G' or R' (detector oriented b). H specifies an EPR-Bell experiment. λ represents Bell's supposed [page 13] variables "which, if only we knew them, would allow decoupling ... " [of the outcomes]. Question: Why would Bell want to decouple outcomes which are correlated? Is he too focussed on separating variables? Bell's λ would allow Bell to write -- consistent with with his (11) -- (11a) (P(GG'|H,a,b,λ) = P1(G|H,a,λ) P2(G'|H,b,λ). So Bell's logic, as cited above in bold, leads him to suggest that (11b) (P(GG'|H,a,b,λ) = P1(G|H,a,λ,b) P2(G'|H,b,λ,a) would avoid some well-known inequalities. I do not follow Bell's logic. I do not see that his move avoids any inequalities. Note 1: a and b are not signals. Note 2: Probability theory, widely seen as the logic of science, would have -- (11c) (P(GG'|H,a,b,λ) = P1(G|H,a,λ,b) P2(G'|H,b,λ,a,G). So, by comparison [Bell's (11b) with (11c)], Bell's (11b) and his logic is equivalent to dropping G from the conditionals on G'. Which is equivalent to saying that G and G' are not correlated?