I must admit that I have never found any best general description of Bell's theorem. Since Bell did not do any real spectroscopic analyses, it is impossible for me to derive anything meaningful Bell's theorem. Somehow quantum transitions are these magical entities according to Bell and many others that have instantaneous correlations and there is never any mention of the very important property of quantum phase coherence.
Look...many very smart people unnecessarily complexify the simplest notions of the universe ostensibly to make some kind of point. Bell's theorem, in my humble opinion, is simply a complexification of a rather simple reality: Quantum phase coherence exists.
Until science can agree that classical observers do not measure phase and that quantum observers do measure phase, there is really no need for discourse. Without spectrometers, science cannot observe sources. With spectrometers, science either measure quantum phase or not measure it.
If the spectrometer does not measure quantum phase, that is fine, but do not try to argue that that is reality. Just try to get by. If the spectrometer measures quantum phase, then you have a shot at the pleasure of discovery of how the universe really works.
The d'Espagnat article is simply incomplete and has a host of all the regular hidden assumptions. It does not deal with time or space, it never mentions phase coherence or its decay, and this article is exactly what is wrong with much of the current quantum phase coherence discourse.
What we need are essays that discuss the nature of quantum phase coherence and what it means. Instantaneous quantum jumps are fine little approximations, but there is a time and phase dependence to all quantum action. Classical action also works quite well for most of gravity action except for dark matter, dark energy, and black holes. Then it needs serious fixin...