been $\frac12$. This shows that $Ch_{q}(e_{A})$ depends counterfactually on the polarization measurement in $\mathbf{2}$ and also on its outcome. Another way to understand talk of alteration of the probability of an event of type $V_{A}$ is as the difference between the actual value of $Ch_{q}(e_{A})$ and what its value would have been had the polarization measurement in $\mathbf{2}$ or its outcome been different. Don’t such counterfactual alterations in $Ch_{q}(e_{A})$ amount to *causal* dependence between space-like separated events, in violation of (IP)? There are several reasons why they do not.

The first reason is that while $Ch_{q}(e_{A})$ would be different in each of these counterfactual scenarios, in none of them would $Ch_{p}(e_{A})$ differ from $\frac12$, so the “local” chance of $e_{A}$ is insensitive to all such counterfactual variations in what happens in $\mathbf{2}$. If one wishes to infer causal from counterfactual dependence of thechance of a result in $\mathbf{1}$ on what happens in $\mathbf{2}$, then only one of two relevant candidates for the chance displays such counterfactual dependence. For those who think of chance as itself a kind of indeterministic cause—a localized physical propensity whose actualization may produce an effect—$Ch_{p}(e_{A})$ seems better qualified for the title of the chance of $e_{A}$ 