of $A$ iff $Pr_{a,b}(A|B,\lambda
> )=Pr_{a,b}(A|\lambda )$.
>
> For $\lambda \varepsilon R_{\lambda }$, $\lambda $ renders $b$ functionally redundant for the task ofspecifying the probability of $A$ iff $Pr_{a,b}(A|\lambda )=Pr_{a}(A|\lambda
> )$.

Though admittedly less general than (LC), (LC)$_{SU}$ seems less problematic but just as well motivated by (IP), as applied to the scenario depicted in Figure 1. If correlations in violation of the CHSH inequality are locally inexplicable in so far as no theory of local beables can explain them consistent with (LC), then they surely also count as locally inexplicable in so far as no theory of local beables can explain them consistent with (LC)$_{SU}$. But Bell himself said we should regard his step from (IP) to (LC) with the utmost suspicion, and that is what I shall do. My grounds for suspicion are my belief that quantum mechanics *itself* helps us to explain the particular correlations violating CHSH inequalities that Bell \[2004, pp. 151-2\] claimed to be locally inexplicable without action at a distance. Moreover, that explanation involves no superluminal action, and there is even a sense in which it is local.

To assess the status of (LC) (or (LC)$_{SU}$) in quantum mechanics one needs to 