Ronald, Great essay. Such heretical thoughts aren't much appreciated by judges with embedded doctrinal beliefs, but at least essayists are freer thinkers. I've identified the same before but been ignored, partly as few even understand QM's assumptions.
You'll see in my own essay we have support from John Bell, but more importantly I've identified an actual error which sent QM off track, and described a mechanistic sequence producing it's data set & Dirac equation. Few can grasp it but you have all the skills to do so, so I'll outline it here;
If we 'split' a sphere, anywhere in relation to its axis, we get North AND South polar rotation to each half. OK? But N 'leads off' one way, S the other. So 'conjugate pairs' are IDENTICAL, just opposite (THAT proves adequate for 'entanglement')! Now A & B's polariser electrons can be rotated 360o. So, when interacting with the incoming state, A & B's FINDING can be reversed by rotating the dial (by simple vector addition). So NO 'spooky action at a distance' or ANY such nonsense is required!
There was just one flaw in your analysis, as Bell showed simple spin alone CAN'T do the job. However. Consider OAM. The polar momenta are 100% rotation 0 linear. But at the equator it's 100% linear 0 rotation! so offset 90o. AND; rotational speed at any tan point changes by the COSINE OF THE LATITUDE!! (inversely with the 'curl').
Lastly; Spheres can rotate on all 3 AXES AT ONCE as this short video.. 2 more parts then gets the magical Cos2Theta. I'll let you find that in my essay. (also last years, with Declan Trail's essay giving the computer plot proof, and other papers).
If anyone is to take note or publish it it need collaboration, which I hope you may agree to join.
Very well done, and look forward to more discussion.
Peter