But Sabine Hossenfelder? You may not agree with what she says, but she's always well thought out and coherent, and she comes across as very sincere. She also attempts to be as clear as possible in what she's saying, avoiding any kind of obfuscation.

Very good point. Definitely not fair to dismiss her out of hand as quackery. She does seem to have a bit of an agenda, though. Useful as one perspective, not so useful as the only perspective.

Can you actually offer a substantive critique of what she's saying?

Hmm ... well, firstly she starts of by titling the video as "What's Going Wrong in Particle Physics? (This is why I lost faith in science.)" First sentence good (although that's definitely not all that's going on wrong), second sentence bad. She should have a second look at her own Euler diagram in the video illustrating "some A are B". But I suppose "This is why I lost faith in some scientists." would not sound as catchy.

Secondly, you get a bit of a credibility hit when you're only presenting the negative results in a field. Letting aside the fact that in any research field there will be a number of failed models and thus negative results, the bias of showing negatives without any qualification (say, by distinguishing them using some sort of metric that describes the distance of the proposed failed theory from the SM) looks a lot like cherry picking. Especially since the (few and disproportionately visible) positive results presented are kind of glossed over. True, finding a novel decay mode or a new unstable quark combination is not as flashy as finding the Higgs, but last time I checked (and it's been quite a while, since HEP is not my main concern or too adjacent to it, so feel free to correct me) our understanding of the strong interaction is not as complete as we'd like. So presenting the field the way she does makes it seem that it's "all are wackos" instead of "there are wackos" - and we're back to Euler diagrams and that dash of dishonesty.

Lastly, her suggestion of directions for moving forward is ... frankly, bad. Not entirely bad, but the "reasonable" kind of bad. It only covers incremental changes, which have their place, but anyone looking at the history of Physics can see that major advances have been made in discontinuous leaps. Which means a certain level of risk-taking is needed in approving research choices. And sadly we don't have a consistent approach for walking this particular tight rope, otherwise for instance the string theory field would look rather different from what it is today. So yes, it's a hard problem, which is not limited to HEP. And, as the saying goes, for every hard problem there's (at least) a solution that is simple, clear and wrong.