But I think your ideas are indeed very much inconsistent with scientific observations and data that are understood as well as needed for our purposes, especially given the most recent experiments. Firstly, if the basic postulates of quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics are indeed correct, then our understanding of what happens in the Bell experiments will be the same in 1000 years as it is today, other than hopefully including a better understanding of what happens in the precise moments when a measurement is made and a wave collapses. There's simply no indication of the mechanism you seek, no proof that it even exists, and without such proof you can't claim that the absence of such a mechanism implies that a theory is incomplete.
There is some indication that something is going on that we don't yet understand. There is no physical evidence as to what is going on which can be quantized and formalized in terms of the mechanics, but the absence of any evidence of such mechanics does not resolve the fact that we don't yet understand the observed results. It is incomplete until we can explain what is going on that we don't yet understand.
Secondly, the latest Bell experiments are set up in such a way that a gravitational wave emitted from one randomized detector at light speed, will not have time to reach the other detector before it too is randomly set, and localized communication even between the randomizers themselves is now ruled out. There's no local mechanism for the two detectors to influence each other after being set, and Bell's theorem establishes that you can't mechanically produce Bell inequality violations under such situations. You seem to be appealing to the locality loophole which has already been ruled out for decades; the only difference in the recent experiments is that the other loopholes are simultaneously closed off at the same time that local communication between the detectors is ruled out.
My position back when you brought up the loophole free experiments was that it did no resolve the fact that we don't understand the physics. At that time you were going to go through the experiments and apparatuses and I was going to ask about the particles being measured, how we determined various states, what exactly causes spin, how the orientation of the measured particles affects the spin that will be measured, etc. We didn't get that far in the discussion, but my position is that we don't have a complete understanding of particles, particle states, entanglement, superposition, etc. to make it definitive that loophole free experiments have resolved the unanswered questions about the nature of particles and the energy density environments that are part of the experiments.
Since you and I both balk at the concept of superdeterminism and associate it with mystical notions of universal consciousness and intelligence, I'm assuming you agree that whatever device or sequence is used to randomize the detectors in the experiment, it doesn't know or in any way take into account that it's going to be used one day in a Bell experiment.
I'm not saying there is a loophole in randomizing the detectors. You are missing my point or ignoring it. I'm saying we don't understand the physics, and so any results are not being explained physically. I assume you are OK with that?
Let's take the experiments apart piece by piece, starting with:
You generate a pair of particles in your basement, where ever that is, that you are quite certain are entangled, meaning in this example that they share the same spin state. That spin may be up or down, and we don't know which until we measure.
We send one off to Kalamazoo, and the other to Tallahassee. Someone in Tallahassee measures the spin of their particle and it is spin up. They then instantly determine that the particle in Kalamazoo is spin up as well.
Is that the kind of experimental result that makes experimenters think there is no local reality, assuming we agree that the information could not travel faster than the speed of light? If so, that result assumes that the spin of the Tallahassee particle was not determined until it was measured. How do we eliminate the possibility that the Tallahassee particle was emitted as spin up, and so it was detected in Tallahassee, not determined in Tallahassee, but instead, determined back in your basement?