Is CSD superdeterministic?

The short answer

Superdeterminism is the escape from Bell's theorem that most physicists find too expensive. It denies that measurement settings can be chosen independently of the hidden state, so the observed correlations were arranged in the initial conditions of the universe, and this saves locality by making experiments unreadable, because if the settings and the systems conspire no measurement tests anything.

CSD doesn't take that route, and the claim is checkable rather than rhetorical. In the corpus's Bell analysis, measurement independence, the assumption that there's one shared distribution over the hidden states and that it's the same whichever settings are chosen, is stated as an explicit premise and proved for the exhibited model. The model's escape from Bell is contextuality of the outcome maps, so what depends on the setting is how outcomes are read off from the hidden state and not which hidden states occur.

It's deterministic, yes. It's superdeterministic, with settings correlated with the hidden state, demonstrably not.

The longer answer

The question turns on a distinction between two places where dependence on the settings could enter. It could enter the distribution over hidden states, which is superdeterminism, or it could enter the functions that turn a hidden state into an outcome, which is contextuality. The corpus's model has one fixed measure across every context, so measurement independence holds by construction and is stated explicitly in the formal development, while the per-context outcome maps carry all the dependence on the setting.

The documentation makes an honesty note of its own. Measurement independence is a genuine premise of Bell derivations, and naming it is part of keeping the Bell analysis auditable, and naming a premise isn't denying it.

What is actually proved

The C1 chain's operational no-signalling stack proves remote marginal invariance for both wings under a single shared measure, which is measurement independence, stated in-module, for the singlet-reproducing contextual model.

The model's context dependence is isolated in the outcome family, and the obstruction theorems show that the dependence can't be removed.

Related entries

• DeterminismThe substrate has no dice, so the spread in the data is variation in what your preparation couldn't pin down.
• Does CSD violate Bell's theorem?No. Bell's theorem stands, CSD proves its own versions of it, and CSD escapes its conclusion by the one route the theorem itself leaves open, measurement outcomes that depend on the measurement context, paid for openly.
• Single trajectoryThere's one world and it follows one path, so probability lives in how experiments are repeated and not in how the world evolves, and theorems rather than wording keep the two apart.
• No-signallingNothing done to the far wing of an entangled pair changes the statistics seen at the near wing, and CSD proves this exactly, for every state, entangled ones included.
• Hidden variablesThe no-go theorems don't kill hidden variables, as they price them, and CSD reads the price tag and pays it.