quantum theory and is (momentarily) located at space-time point $x$ should match credence in $e_{A}$ to $Ch_{x}(e_{A})$ because it is precisely the role of chance to reflect the epistemic bearing of all information accessible at $x$ on facts not so accessible, and to accept quantum theory is to treat it as an expert when assessing the chances. This is so whether or not an agent is *actually* located at $x$—fortunately, since it is obviously a gross idealization to locate the epistemic deliberations of a physically situated agent at a space-time point! A hypothetical agent located at $q$ in the forward light cone of region $\mathbf{2}$ (but not $\mathbf{1}$) has access to the additional information that the outcome in $\mathbf{2}$ is of type $V_{B}$: so the reference class used to infer the chance of $e_{A}$ at $q$ from the Born rule should include that information. That is why $Ch_{q}(e_{A})$ is determined by the conditional Born probability $Pr_{a,b}^{\Phi
^{+}}(V_{A}|V_{B})$ but $Ch_{p}(e_{A})$ is determined by the unconditional Born probability $Pr_{a,b}^{\Phi ^{+}}(V_{A})$.

In the special case that the settings $a,b$ coincide (the polarizers are perfectly aligned) application of the Born rule yields the chances depicted in Figure 3.Bell (\[2004, pp. 240-41\]) took this example 