Are you saying you think RH is unsolvabe? that any GUT will be a tautology by definition? or am I reading that wrong?

I really wasn't, but it's well known that no model can be a perfect reproduction of the system it models. Any such GUT will have certain holes, and you certainly can't boot strap a model by observing that it doesn't have some certain hole.

Saying "I've got a model that would cover these two holes if it were true" is not the same as saying "I've got a useful model that makes observable predictions or provides uniquely useful explanations".

That the theory proposed in the article covers Riemann and Collatz means little. The theory proposed by the bible covers Riemann and Collatz, and consensus is decidedly thin on that particular paper.

If this paper had provided a genuine proof that actually proved both Riemann and Collatz, we would not first and only be hereing about it on HN. It doesn't do that. All it does is suggest that there might be a proof that does so. The reason we know that it doesn't do so definitively is that the author has several other such papers that are also unremarked upon. The author would not have had to write this paper if any of her prior "proofs of the Riemann Hypothesis" had been accepted.

Why, if she's written multiple papers each individually claiming to provide proofs of the Riemann Hypothesis that have each individually been met with little fanfare, should we suspect that this, the latest in a line of "aha, I've solved Riemann AND X" papers, is the genuine article?