My lengthy comment was not about value extracted in this video, it was addressing your doubts about the information in it. I personally got value from the subject of the video itself. Which we did not discuss.

It really appears to me that you weren't trying to address any value. What you describe as critical thinking was merely searching for ways to object without thinking too hard about whether it was a fair objection. As an example I point to your failure to follow the trivial mathematical argument saying that LQG models either have to accept that there is no lower bound on quantized area, or that they violate Lorentz invariance. You kept trying to insist that this sounded like she was contradicting herself (she wasn't), and this argument should be resolved by some sort of experiment.

If this is truly the critical thinking that you take to research papers, you're probably not doing nearly as good a job of reading them as you imagine. Meanwhile, back in the real world, I make a habit of attempting to figure out how trustworthy and well-informed each source is. And how objectively they report on what they think that they know. I'm extremely pleased with Sabine. She's very careful to only report as fact things which are true. She's willing to express opinions with no regard to who will agree or disagree. And she's clear on the difference between her knowledge, opinion, and speculation.

Because of this, I've learned to trust her claims on things that I can't independently verify. Her personal reports on the behavior within LQG is of interest to me. The independent confirmation from John Baez, who I've known for years, trust, and has a completely different point of view, makes her description extremely trustworthy. Her claims on that topic are not something that I can independently verify other than to decide which primary sources I trust. And I've learned to trust both Sabine and John.