The problems with Copenhagen are fundamentally one-world problems and they go along with any one-world theory. If I honestly believed that the only reason the QM sequence wasn't convincing was that I didn't go through every single one-world theory to refute them separately, I could try to write separate posts for RQM, Bohm, and so on, but I'm not convinced that this is the case. Any single-world theory needs either spooky action at a distance, or really awful amateur epistemology plus spooky action at a distance, and there's just no reason to even hypothesize single-world theories in the first place.

It is not worth writing separate posts for each interpretation. However it is becoming increasingly apparent that to the extent that the QM sequence matters at all it may be worth writing a single post which outlines how your arguments apply to the other interpretations. ie.:

• A brief summary of and a link to your arguments in favor of locality then an explicit mention of how this leads to rejecting "Ensemble, Copenhagen, de Broglie–Bohm theory, von Neumann, Stochastic, Objective collapse and Transactional" interpretations and theories.
• A brief summary of and a link to your arguments about realism in general and quantum realism in particular and why the wavefunction not being considered 'real' counts against "Ensemble, Copenhagen, Stochastic and Relational" interpretations.
• Some outright mockery of the notion that observation and observers have some kind of intrinsic or causal role (Coppenhagen, von Neumann and Relational).
• Mention hidden variables and the complexity burden thereof (de Broglie–Bohm, Popper).

Having such a post as part of the sequence would make it trivial to dismiss claims like:

You lead the reader toward a false dichotomy (Copenhagen or many worlds) in order to suggest that the low probability of copenhagen implies many worlds. This ignores a vast array of other interpretations.

... as straw men. As it stands however this kind of claim (evidently, by reception) persuades many readers, despite this being significantly different to the reasoning that you intended to convey.

If it worth you maintaining active endorsement of your QM posts it may be worth ensuring both that it is somewhat difficult to actively misrepresent them and also that the meaning of your claims are as clear as they can conveniently be made. If there are Mihaly Barasz's out there who you can recruit via the sanity of your physics epistemology there are also quite possibly IMO gold medalists out there who could be turned off by seeing negative caricatures of your QM work so readily accepted and then not bother looking further.

Note that the Born probabilities really obviously have something to do with the unitarity of QM, while no single-world interpretation is going to have this be anything but a random contingent fact.

Not so. If we insist that our predictions need to be probabilities (take the Born probabilities as fundamental/necessary), then unitarity becomes equivalent to the statement that probabilities have to sum to 1, and we can then try to piece together what our update equation should look like. This is the approach taken by the 'minimalist'/'ensemble' interpretation that Ballentine's textbook champions, he uses probabilities sum to 1 and some group theory (related to the Galilean symmetry group) to motivate the form of the Schroedinger equation. Edit to clarify: In some sense, its the reverse of many worlds- instead of taking the Schroedinger axioms as fundamental and attempting to derive Born, take the operator/probability axioms seriously and try to derive Schroedinger.

I believe the same consideration could be said of the consistent histories approach, but I'd have to think about it before I'd fully commit.

Edit to add: Also, what about "non-spooky" action at a distance? Something like the transactional interpretation, where we take relativity seriously and use both the forward and backward Green's function of the Dirac/Klein-Gordon equation? This integrates very nicely with Barbour's timeless physics, properly derives the Born rule, has a single world, BUT requires some stochastic modifications to the Schroedinger equation.