Abstract

Bell experiments are commonly interpreted as proof that the outcomes of quantum mea surements are fundamentally random and that no “hidden variables” exist. This paper con ducts a conceptual audit of the assumptions underlying Bell’s formalism and demonstrates that this conclusion exceeds what the experiments actually establish. The analysis shows that Bell’s inequalities rule out models based on distinguishable, separable, and transferable local variables. They do not refute determinism with respect to a specific physical realization of the system, provided its internal configuration is neither distinguishable within the given descriptive framework nor usable as an information channel. The apparent randomness of quantum outcomes may therefore be epistemic (arising from the limited resolution of our descriptive framework) rather than ontological. This paper does not propose an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics, nor does it introduce hidden variables. It performs an inferential audit of what Bell-type experiments logically exclude (and what they do not.