Maybe I am misunderstanding you but non-locality is not just an artifact. It's proven both experimentally and mathematically through Bells Theorem. It's as solid as Einstein's theory of relativity and gravity.

What is interpreted is mostly the consequence of that philosophically (i.e. what does that mean).

Well, that is what I said: non-locality is just an artifact "of certain interpretations / modifications of QM". Bell's theorem doesn't prove non-locality; what it proves is that no (alternative) theory (of mechanics) that's both classical, aka naively realist, and local could reproduce QM's successful predictions (of those experimental results).

Which must lead us to conclude non-locality unless we can come up with a better explanation.

I've seen a few alternatives like electrical universe theory which tries to take the spookiness out of QM but so far no other theory reconsile both clasically and QM and the two are proven to the extent that anything can be proven. Classical physics is not proven more than QM. You could easily reverse your argument starting with QM and saying classical physics doesn't prove locality.

No, it mustn't! The logical negation of the conjunction "classical* and local" is "non-classical or non-local". Electrical universe theory"?! Please stick to standard and generally accepted quantum foundations / interpretation. There's no (non-local) spookiness to be taken out of QM in the first place - except for those who choose to reject the non-classical option. %

* Your last remarks suggest you haven't read those Werner refs and don't know what is meant by the term "classical" as I've used it here - it's a reference to the structure of (general) probability state spaces, not to classical physics per se - and you should substitute "(naively) realist" for "classical" in the above.

% And those familiar with the probability theoretic aspects (see my links in a comment in a different thread here, or Tom Banks's teaser: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/files/2011/... ), probably won't want to do that. For example, the reason violations of Bell-type inequalities occur in QM is mundane from this perspective: "What on earth did you expect?! You have observables that don't commute! Use the appropriate inequality." https://sci-hub.tw/10.1016/0375-9601(87)90075-2

You are the one who seems to be using esoteric interpretations of language to come to a conclusion that you have yet to provide any argument or evidence for.

The problem of interpretation is at the reconciliation phase that's what I care about.

Thanks for the links, they helped clarify my thoughts.