 To go back to the EPR dilemma between  locality  and completeness, it would appear from the Bell theorem that Einstein’s preference for locality at the expense of completeness may have fixed on the wrong horn. Even though the Bell theorem does not rule out locality conditions conclusively, it should certainly make one wary of assuming them. On the other hand, since Einstein’s  exploding gunpowder argument  (or Schrödinger’s cat), along with his later arguments over macro-systems, support incompleteness without assuming locality, one should be wary of adopting the other horn of the dilemma, affirming that the quantum state descriptions are complete and “therefore” that the theory is nonlocal. It may well turn out that both horns need to be rejected: that the state functions do not provide a complete description and that the theory is also nonlocal (although possibly still separable; see Winsberg and Fine 2003). There is at least one well-known approach to the quantum theory that makes a choice of this sort, the de Broglie-Bohm approach  (Bohmian Mechanics).  Of course it may also be possible to break the EPR argument for the dilemma plausibly by questioning some of its other assumptions (e.g.,  separability,  the reduction postulate, the  eigenvalue-eigenstate link,  or measurement independence). That might free up the remaining option, to regard the theory as both local and complete. Perhaps some version of the  Everett Interpretation  would come to occupy this branch of the interpretive tree, or perhaps  Relational Quantum Mechanics.  