  Wood and Spekkens (2015) argue that any causal model explaining the EPRB
correlations and satisfying no-signalling must also violate the assumption that
the model faithfully reproduces the statistical dependences and
independences---a so-called "fine-tuning" of the causal parameters; this
includes, in particular, retrocausal explanations of the EPRB correlations. I
consider this analysis with a view to enumerating the possible responses an
advocate of retrocausal explanations might propose. I focus on the response of
N\"{a}ger (2015), who argues that the central ideas of causal explanations can
be saved if one accepts the possibility of a stable fine-tuning of the causal
parameters. I argue that, in light of this view, a violation of faithfulness
does not necessarily rule out retrocausal explanations of the EPRB
correlations, although it certainly constrains such explanations. I conclude by
considering some possible consequences of this type of response for retrocausal
explanations.
