Bell–CHSH refers to a combination of correlations obtained with different measurement settings. Its role is to test assumptions about how joint outcomes can be generated. The MQ manuscript does not claim that a Bell-factorizable, setting-independent local hidden-variable model reproduces the quantum result.

Instead, analyzer settings enter a contextual joint-availability description. The construction assigns probabilities to correlated outcomes of the shared preparation and recovers the appropriate polarization-correlation behavior in its worked example.

The source also retains operational no-signaling. A correlation between spatially separated records is not a controllable channel for transmitting a chosen message faster than light. Internal relational locality and locality in realized spacetime are different concepts and should not be conflated in a headline.

Recovering a known correlation is a theoretical consistency result. It does not mean the manuscript conducted a new loophole-free Bell experiment, nor that the result evades the assumptions of Bell’s theorem without changing the relevant factorization premise. Those assumptions need to be stated explicitly.

The result is a proposed account of how quantum-compatible correlations arise within MQ. For a journalist, the substantive questions concern the preparation, the role of context, the mathematical joint distribution, and the preservation of operational constraints. The work should be assessed at that level rather than promoted as a refutation of Bell or a mechanism for instantaneous communication.