In some sense, yes, this is just quibbling over terminology (as all pedagogical issues ultimately boil down to terminology).  But the terminological quibble is very subtle and profound.<p>&gt; after observing one particle, observations on the other particle are described and predicted by a non-entangled, non-superposition state.<p>This is the misleading part.  It is not true in an absolute sense.  It is only true for the observer that makes the &quot;first&quot; measurement (with &quot;first&quot; in scare quote because relativity).  It is not true for the observer of the &quot;other&quot; particle.  There is no measurement that can be made on the &quot;other&quot; particle that will tell you if the first particle has been measured.<p>&gt; The possible outcomes of the observations on the other particle, both predicted and measured, are different after the observation on the first particle.<p>This too is misleading because it assumes that &quot;possibility&quot; is a universal property and it isn&#x27;t.  The &quot;possible&quot; outcomes for the &quot;other&quot; particle change for the observer of the &quot;first&quot; particle, but not for the observer of the &quot;other&quot; particle.  And even this is not quite right because it depends on whether the observations are time-like or space-like separated, and whether or not there is a classical communications channel open between the two observers.  It gets complicated.  Read the paper.