I am pretty sure 99.9% of her colleagues won't state that "this is impossible" when presented a consistent model. Why would they? Why do you do that?
None of the laws and equations hold quantitatively, also the basic objects do not exist, and the basic axioms don't hold either. All of the qualitative results, conservation laws, negative laws that forbid things are total useless.
There is a chance that relativity is wrong, there is no spacetime, there are no frames, E, m and c are useless numbers, and albeit they are definable and measurable, E=mc^2 never ever holds. (< or > holds instead)
Or the same can happen with quantum, there are no states, you can't add states together, Dirac equation never ever holds quantitatively, etc etc.
For instance, Newtonian physics wasn’t demolished by Einstein et al. It was refined, such that Newtonian physics applies very well in scenarios and scales that we would consider ordinary.
But you are completely right. When the theories are unified then people could very well be saying “you can’t just add these states together”, just like I’d often say that when talking about adding speeds together (it doesn’t convince the traffic officer). What I do think, though, is that a perfectly good response to that will be “ah, yes, that isn’t a problem though because this isn’t in the presence of a magnetic, rotating, supermassive black hole with a funny hat on, so the flopookle correction we learned about in physics 201 is negligible”