There's a lot of interesting stuff here, but none of it has really been settled on by the wider Physics community. It certainly is a huge area of continuing research and debate.
Who is "the wider Physics community", and what do they have to do with it? Do we expect someone in solid state physics to be driving the directions of research into numerical relativity in vacuum higher dimensional spacetimes? Or a general-relativist deciding on the merits of a doctoral dissertation presented in nonlinear optics?
Every point but one in the comment you replied to is as far as I know found in one or more standard graduate-level textbooks on gravitation (even "Teaching tradition!" is paraphrased from Kaiser's MTW preface). If you like I can direct you to them; they are all much more interesting than my HN comment(s).
(The exception is my point on lattice methods in numerical relativity, for which you will need a specialist graduate textbook like Baumgarte & Shapiro.)
Generally in Physics we eventually reach some kind of consensus on the most accurate theory, however as far as I can tell there are multiple competing theories of Quantum Gravity. Similar to how the interpretation of QM is unsolved because we haven't significantly justified a specific interpretation yet.
By "the wider Physics community" I mean Physicists in general having a general sense that the problem has been solved, for example a solid state physicist has some idea that the Standard Model is our most accurate theory of the three interactions it covers, even if they know nothing about the Standard Model. Eventually a theory of Quantum Gravity will reach that kind of recognition if we have some kind of experimental evidence or strong theoretical arguments regarding it. It is a question of marketing and broadcasting
Every point but one in the comment you replied to is as far as I know found in one or more standard graduate-level textbooks on gravitation (even "Teaching tradition!" is paraphrased from Kaiser's MTW preface). If you like I can direct you to them; they are all much more interesting than my HN comment(s).
(The exception is my point on lattice methods in numerical relativity, for which you will need a specialist graduate textbook like Baumgarte & Shapiro.)