Sigh...
Again you are interpreting Zeilinger wrong. And, framed by your interpretation, even @joigus gets it wrong here:
No, you are reading it 'backwards'. Read precisely what Zeilinger is saying:
Superdeterminism would be (reshuffling above sentence):
That would mean that reality (even in the far past) has a very essential influence on our deciding which measurement to perform.
Read closely, so that you see the difference. If necessary, repeat in your own words, so that we can check that you really understand that you read the original sentence backwards.
In Zeilinger's own words, in its own paragraph about superdeterminism (calling it 'total determinism'):
Bold by me.
I mentioned that already here:
And this is what the 'quasar-driven' experiment is about. Not about the choice of locality on one side, and realism on the other. Again, bangstrom, in their technical meanings as used in CHSH, not in what you would like to see as realism (non-locality implies non-realism). Zeilinger and co are very clear in their article: it is about closing the free-choice loophole, not about locality or realism.
Just in case you do not notice: I boldface words in my own texts, that use these words as they are meant in their precise meanings as used by all QM authors, especially CHSH.
Nope. Correlation (consistently, not accidentally) means that the events share a common history. And that is the moment that the entangled particle were produced.