If you are saying that the issue apperently most contentious to you is a hypothesis, why did you call the entire article opinion to begin with? Seems contradict

If you are saying that the issue apperently most contentious to you is a hypothesis, why did you call the entire article opinion to begin with? Seems contradictory to me. As far as I can tell, she's really only saying is that we would have easily seen QG effects of some sort if it wasn't because it's only relevant at high curvatures, for some measure of high. Hence all of the relevant theories in the QG fields can with high probability only be relevant at high curvatures, because we should have seen them otherwise. Which part of that do you consider to be incorrect?