Even ordinary interpretations of QM don't explain the source of randomness in QM. This randomness can be entirely deterministic which would make the entire universe deterministic. So superdeterminism can still be the case, even if it isn't the reason for entanglement correlations. The entanglement correlations would instead be due to shared RNG references across spacetime, effectively nonlocal.
My point is, locality and superdeterminism aren't mutually exclusive, they are independent. All 4 combinations are logically possible with current experimental evidence.
> The fact that superdeterminism can violate statistical independence is what lets it violate bell's theorem, right?
Yes, the idea is that the past of both the detectors, experimenters, and particle producer were once interacting, relatively recently in the scheme of the human race (let alone civilization, the big bang, etc.) These correlations would be responsible for the entanglement correlations, not a shared nonlocal RNG reference, but rather an inherited local piece of an old reference.
Nonetheless, superdeterminism doesn't have to be doing anything conspiratorial, but the possibility of doing so, lets it violate Bell/CHSH inequalities.
My point is, locality and superdeterminism aren't mutually exclusive, they are independent. All 4 combinations are logically possible with current experimental evidence.
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/quantum-randomness