If you mean that the violation will disappear when averaged over all the possible triples, then yes.Translation: even though you you may violate for a single triple, when you average over a large number, the violation will disappear.
Absolutely not what I said. If this is what you're getting from what I've posted here, then you haven't understood the point I am making. At all.Translation: the inequality derived for a single set must apply to three different sets [...]
I don't understand what this is even supposed to mean. If Alice and Bob measure the (ab, ac, bc) terms in that order, then they cannot also measure the (ac, bc, ab) terms in that order on the same three photon pairs. They've already done the experiment and they can't change history. As far as I can tell you are describing something completely meaningless and I don't recognise it as having anything to do with anything I said.Translation: the inequality derived for a single set must apply to data collected in three different measurements because if Alice and Bob collect data for three pairs which violate the inequality, they must also collect exactly the equivalent combinations of the other correlators which do not violate the inequality so that the averages from the three datasets must not violate the inequality.