The main motivation behind the search for deeper theories behind QM is the preservation of locality (no physical effect can propagate faster than the speed of light). Locality appears to be a fundamental physical principle. It is a consequence of Einstein's theory of relativity, so Einstein was the first to notice that if QM is assumed to be a complete physical theory (no additional variable are added) it must be non-local. The argument is presented in this paper:
Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?
A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777
Central to the argument is the EPR (from Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen) reality criterion:
"If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of reality corresponding to that quantity."
In QM is it possible to prepare a pair of particles (by splitting a diatomic molecule for example) so that the result of a spin measurement on particle A is always opposite to the result of a spin measurement on particle B (as long as the measurements are performed on the same direction). This phenomenon is called entanglement.
Let's formulate the argument in the context of such an experiment with spin 1/2 particles where the measurements are performed in such a way that a light signal cannot get from A to B (they are performed at the same time, at a large distance from one another):
It is possible to predict with certainty the spin of particle B by measuring particle A (QM prediction - the results are always opposite).
The measurement of particle A does not disturb particle B (locality).
From 1 and 2 it follows that the state of particle B after A is measured is the same as the one before A is measured (definition of the word "disturb")
After A is measured B is in a state of defined spin (QM prediction)
From 3 and 4 it follows that B was in state of defined spin all along.
The spin of A is always found to be opposite from the spin of B (QM prediction)
From 5 and 6 it follows that A was in a state of defined spin all along.
Conclusion: QM + locality implies that the the true state of A and B was a state of defined spin. The superposed, entangled state is a consequence of our lack of knowledge in regard to the true state. So, QM is either an incomplete (statistical) description of a local deterministic hidden variable theory or it is non-local.
So, the four "motivations" you list are actually consequences of the assumption of locality. The reason Einstein opposed Bohr's "Copenhagen" interpretation was not his desire to make the theory deterministic, but local.
Let's take a look at Bell's theorem now.
Bell devised an experiment to check which of the remaining options after EPR is true. Do we live in a non-local world (which can be either deterministic or non-deterministic) or in a local and deterministic one?
Now, there are two assumptions in Bell's theorem. One is locality, the other is independence (the hidden variables do not depend on the measurements' settings).
The theorem says:
No physical theory that fulfills the above assumptions can reproduce QM's predictions.
Many experimental tests have been performed and each time the QM's prediction was confirmed, so we either can accept that physics is non-local, or that the independence assumption is false. The choice should be easy now. As stated above, locality is a central physical principle. Independence is not. In fact, it is trivial to find distant non-independent systems, two stars orbiting each other being such an example. So, after Bell, superdeterminism results as a consequence of maintaining that QM is correct and locality holds.
Just like non-locality, retrocausality has never been observed to take place in an experiment and no known theory implies it. So, I think that the main motivation behind the introduction of this concept is a wrong understanding of EPR and Bell arguments. Once you realize that superdeterminism does not require any departure from any known physical principle it makes no sense to go for other options that do make such requirements.