My main point is that there is only one meaningful difference: the presence of the unique mathematical framework. This alone would not be sufficient to put that

My main point is that there is only one meaningful difference: the presence of the unique mathematical framework. This alone would not be sufficient to put that theory in the category of science. Why? It comes down to the basic requirement that the theory should make some new and falsifiable prediction. Without that, the theory would at best be a mathematical unification (admittedly quite an impressive one). If using it isn't substantially better than using the older theories, all you've really done is invented a mathematical object that behaves like relativity in one context and quantum mechanics in another (and doing that without introducing loads of hidden variables seems to be enormously difficult). There is only something noteworthy and new in that mathematical sense. Is it interesting? Absolutely. Is it a scientific theory? Not really.